Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #82

[Seattle1]

He'll run out of money at some point and those 3 attorneys are going to want to be paid in advance.

But I agree, he isn't going to care how long it takes to get to trial. But until he does, he stuck in Chaffee County
.
I guess he could gnaw off one of his rear paws, like a badger.

Although, if he waits till he's right at the edge of Chaffee County to cut it off with his new bolt cutters, he'll be long gone and untrackable...

With the PH over, I'm very interested in learning from profilers now. I think BM would consider death by cop versus life in prison but I don't think he'd commit suicide -- although he's allegedly threatened for years.

ETA: Always BM the victim, martyr.

 

[gitana1]

I've wondered about that ever since he was charged with her murder. It certainly seems to present a GREAT conflict of interest to allow someone to retain legal guardian status over the very same person they've been charged with murdering. I can't see how that's even legal, in any sense. Maybe @Alethea or @gitana1 can shed some light on that?

Someone has to file something to end the guardianship.

 

[Seattle1]

Archery season has already started for big game, I think, and ends on Sept 30, IIRC. So he needs to hurry.

I keep thinking that if he puts up the cash himself ($500,000!), he's got to be burning through his approx. $3M pretty quickly. I bet he needs to top up his retainer (two different law firms now?) for the trial. The delaying tactics will begin soon, I think. Those will cost money, but Barry will likely want to delay trial as long as possible.

I also wonder how he'll make a living. I don't think the friends who are hosting MM2 will allow him to stay that entire time at their home. As much as they are supporters of the Morphew family, having press outside your door every time there's a hearing or because Barry does something that is suspicious...would be disruptive to family life. He needs his own place. Will Tailwinds rent to him again? I wouldn't - who wants their other residents subject to the intermittent media circus that will be Barry's life?

Sure, he's still got some money. Maybe a friend, one he knows well, happens to have a rental and will let him stay on the cheap, but will the neighbors be happy? Are people willing to destroy their own neighborly or family relationships for Barry, now that they know what he's capable of?

Who will hire him? And all the while, his feelings will be hurt by people staring askance at him. A few might mutter something. Or even shout something.

BM is lucky he's ordered to remain in Chaffee County. I don't think he will have a problem with media in the county because it's too inconvenient for them. Just ask any reporter or outlet that covered the court proceedings! I also think locals will continue to let BM be just as they left him alone to work to support himself and his family until his arrest date. Although this would not be possible in the larger metro area, small towns are like that. MOO

 

[CGray123]

I've not followed BM's guardianship to Colorado but in the state of Indiana, the Probate (guardianship) Court would have replaced BM as the guardian with either a court-appointed guardian or the alternate named in the initial petition.

I don't know if Conservatorship records in Colorado are open without a subscription service. I'm assuming they're not and probably why nobody tracking SM's conservatorship. MOO

The Colorado conservatorship statute requires the appointed conservator to post a bond, file a financial plan to protect the respondent's assets, and file a report of assets and expenses annually.

The statute also provides that anyone acting in the interest of the respondent can petition the court to enforce those duties OR, to remove the conservator. See below.

To me (non-lawyer) this means Andy Moorman can petition for an accounting and for BM's removal. My guess is, filing the AA as an attachment would get the desired result. If I were AM, I'd do it in a heartbeat (but of course, I'm not a family member).

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 15. Probate, Trusts, and Fiduciaries § 15-14-414. Petition for order subsequent to appointment

(1) A protected person or a person interested in the welfare of a protected person may file a petition in the appointing court for an order:

(a) Requiring bond or collateral or additional bond or collateral, or reducing bond or collateral;

(b) Requiring an accounting for the administration of the protected person's estate;

(c) Directing distribution;

(d) Removing the conservator pursuant to section 15-10-503 and appointing a special or successor conservator;

(e) Modifying the type of appointment or powers granted to the conservator if the extent of protection or management previously granted is currently excessive or insufficient or the protected person's ability to manage the estate and business affairs has so changed as to warrant the action;  or

(f) Granting other appropriate relief.

(2) A conservator may petition the appointing court for instructions concerning fiduciary responsibility.

(3) Upon notice and hearing the petition, the court may give appropriate instructions and make any appropriate order.

(4) At the conclusion of the hearings authorized by this section, the court may review the motions and petitions filed by a party under this section to determine if they were substantially warranted and brought in good faith.  If, after the hearing, the court determines that the motions and petitions filed under this section were not substantially warranted or were brought in bad faith, the court may award fees and costs against the movant or petitioner including, but not limited to, the attorney fees and costs incurred by the conservatorship, or the affected parties, in responding to the motions and petitions.

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 15. Probate, Trusts, and Fiduciaries § 15-10-503. Power of a court to address the conduct of a fiduciary--emergencies--nonemergencies

(1) Emergency situations--court action without the requirement of prior notice or hearing.  If it appears to a court that an emergency exists because a fiduciary's actions or omissions pose an imminent risk of substantial harm to a ward's or protected person's health, safety, or welfare or to the financial interests of an estate, the court may, on its own motion or upon the request of an interested person, without a hearing and without following any of the procedures authorized by section 15-10-502 , order the immediate restraint, restriction, or suspension of the powers of the fiduciary;  direct the fiduciary to appear before the court;  or take such further action as the court deems appropriate to protect the ward or protected person or the assets of the estate.  If a court restrains, restricts, or suspends the powers of a fiduciary, the court shall set a hearing and direct that notice be given pursuant to section 15-10-505 .  The clerk of the court shall immediately note the restraint, restriction, or suspension on the fiduciary's letters, if any.  Any action for the removal, surcharge, or sanction of a fiduciary shall be governed by this section.

(2) Nonemergency situations--court action after notice and hearing.  Upon petition by a person who appears to have an interest in an estate, or upon the court's own motion, and after a hearing for which notice to the fiduciary has been provided pursuant to section 15-10-505 , a court may order any one or more of the following:

(a) Supervised administration of a decedent's estate, as described in part 5 of article 12 of this title.  The degree and extent of the supervision shall be endorsed upon the fiduciary's letters, if any.

(b) A temporary restraint on the fiduciary's performance of specified acts of administration, disbursement, or distribution;  a temporary restraint on the fiduciary's exercise of any powers or discharge of any duties of the office of the fiduciary;  or any other order to secure proper performance of the fiduciary's duty if it appears to the court that, in the absence of such an order, the fiduciary may take some action that would unreasonably jeopardize the interest of the petitioner or of some other interested person.  The court may make persons with whom the fiduciary may transact business parties to any order issued pursuant to this paragraph (b).  The restraint shall be endorsed upon the fiduciary's letters, if any.

(c) Additional restrictions on the powers of the fiduciary.  The restrictions shall be endorsed upon the fiduciary's letters, if any.

(d) The suspension of the fiduciary if the court determines that the fiduciary has violated his, her, or its fiduciary duties.  If a court orders the suspension of a fiduciary pursuant to this paragraph (d), the court shall direct that the suspension be endorsed upon the fiduciary's letters, if any.

(e) The appointment of a temporary or permanent successor fiduciary;

(f) A review of the fiduciary's conduct.  If a court orders a review of the fiduciary's conduct, the court shall specify the scope and duration of the review in the court's order.

(g) A surcharge or sanction of the fiduciary pursuant to section 15-10-504 ;

(h) The removal of the fiduciary;  or

(i) Such further relief as the court deems appropriate to protect the ward or protected person or the assets of the estate.

(3) Removal of a fiduciary--procedures.  A court may remove a fiduciary for cause at any time, and the following provisions apply:

(a) If a court orders the removal of a fiduciary, the court shall direct by order the disposition of the assets remaining in the name of, or under the control of, the fiduciary being removed.

(b) If a court orders the removal of a fiduciary, the court shall direct that the fiduciary's letters, if any, be revoked and that such revocation be endorsed upon the fiduciary's letters, if any.

(c) Cause for removal of a fiduciary exists when:

(I) Removal would be in the best interests of the estate;

(II) It is shown that the fiduciary or the person seeking the fiduciary's appointment intentionally misrepresented material facts in the proceedings leading to the fiduciary's appointment;  or

(III) The fiduciary has disregarded an order of the court, has become incapable of discharging the duties of the office, or has mismanaged the estate or failed to perform any duty pertaining to the office.

(4) Petition for removal--temporary restraints on fiduciary powers.  After a fiduciary receives notice of the filing of a petition for his, her, or its removal, the fiduciary shall not act except to account, to correct maladministration, or to preserve the estate.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

^^bbm

Respectfully and IMO, for as long as OP continues to insist that their opinion over-rules the written law, I believe members will continue to provide factual information that disputes OP's argument.

Do you believe the Judge is violating the law?

https://www.coloradodefenders.us/wp...coloradobailbookpretrialrelease9112015245.pdf

When the proof is evident or the presumption is great that the defendant committed the charged capital offense, the court must deny bail. People v. Dist. Court of County of Adams, 529 P.2d 1335 (Colo. 1974).

The “requirement [of proof evident] simply goes to the proof of guilt, not to the kind of proof needed for the imposition of the death penalty.” Further, an offense does not cease to be a capital offense even when the death penalty may not be imposed. Corbett v. Patterson, 272 F. Supp. 602, 608 (D. Colo. 1967).

No. But it is not black and white. His judgment is not infallible. Just because he weighed the evidence in favor of bail (fairly unprecedented for M1) doesn't mean he got it right. It's not black and white. As the trier of fact, it is his responsibility to decide but to suggest he had no other course of action UNDER THE LAW is silly. So you are making a silly argument. He exercised his responsibility to the best of his ability I am sure. But he put a man on the street who premeditated a capital offense. To say he had no other options is not even arguable. This is not the forum for that, as you well know. TOS

 

[Seattle1]

Respectfully, 50/50 is not the standard for PEPG, required to reject bail. That was his point.

Standards of Proof

•Proof evident, presumption great: burden is on the prosecution to show by testimony and/or real evidence that there is no question of the defendant’s guilt

–The standard of proof required for a judicial officer to deny bail in cases involving capital felonies

Standards of Proof Proof evident presumption great burden is on the prosecution | Course Hero

 

[10ofRods]

I've wondered about that ever since he was charged with her murder. It certainly seems to present a GREAT conflict of interest to allow someone to retain legal guardian status over the very same person they've been charged with murdering. I can't see how that's even legal, in any sense. Maybe @Alethea or @gitana1 can shed some light on that?

If someone with standing as Suzanne's closest kin after Barry (IOW MM1 or MM2) would challenge it, I think the conservatorship would be revoked. But, MM1 signed off on the conservatorship in Indiana and shows no signs of attempting to revoke it.

So it stands. In a different family system, of course the victim's survivors would have already filed to revoke.

I don't think he's truly worth $3 unless the sale of his landscaping business in Indiana actually resulted in some cash - and I'm not sure that it did. But he does have about $2.2M that we know about from selling off real estate.

But my big question is: if the ankle tracker doesn't have "GPS tracking," and only goes off if Barry hits a boundary of Chaffee County, what then? How can they find him?

Surely it does transmit GPS information to a monitoring system somewhere - surely this just means that there's no one sitting there monitoring it? Does anyone know more about these things work? If Barry were to remove it, what would they know about where he was when he removed it? If he does it near a boundary to Chaffee County, he'll be long gone before they can even figure out where he is (it would help if he had an accomplice to quickly move him to a different area of Chaffee County and then out of Chaffee County).

It wouldn't be surprising if some of Barry's money is in a non-US based bank...

 

[10ofRods]

With the PH over, I'm very interested in learning from profilers now. I think BM would consider death by cop versus life in prison but I don't think he'd commit suicide -- although he's allegedly threatened for years.

That's a really good point. It would make sense for someone like Barry to remove the ankle monitor, be out of Chaffee County immediately and then, he'd make a run for a border. Surely he'd be seen. I also believe he'd be armed for this.

He can't go far, in any case - Canada and Mexico aren't going to want him (and I truly think he'd need his passport to get into Canada, although...I suppose he could figure out a different way).

 

[10ofRods]

The Colorado conservatorship statute requires the appointed conservator to post a bond, file a financial plan to protect the respondent's assets, and file a report of assets and expenses annually.

The statute also provides that anyone acting in the interest of the respondent can petition the court to enforce those duties OR, to remove the conservator. See below.

To me (non-lawyer) this means Andy Moorman can petition for an accounting and for BM's removal. My guess is, filing the AA as an attachment would get the desired result. If I were AM, I'd do it in a heartbeat (but of course, I'm not a family member).

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 15. Probate, Trusts, and Fiduciaries § 15-14-414. Petition for order subsequent to appointment

(1) A protected person or a person interested in the welfare of a protected person may file a petition in the appointing court for an order:

(a) Requiring bond or collateral or additional bond or collateral, or reducing bond or collateral;

(b) Requiring an accounting for the administration of the protected person's estate;

(c) Directing distribution;

(d) Removing the conservator pursuant to section 15-10-503 and appointing a special or successor conservator;

(e) Modifying the type of appointment or powers granted to the conservator if the extent of protection or management previously granted is currently excessive or insufficient or the protected person's ability to manage the estate and business affairs has so changed as to warrant the action;  or

(f) Granting other appropriate relief.

(2) A conservator may petition the appointing court for instructions concerning fiduciary responsibility.

(3) Upon notice and hearing the petition, the court may give appropriate instructions and make any appropriate order.

(4) At the conclusion of the hearings authorized by this section, the court may review the motions and petitions filed by a party under this section to determine if they were substantially warranted and brought in good faith.  If, after the hearing, the court determines that the motions and petitions filed under this section were not substantially warranted or were brought in bad faith, the court may award fees and costs against the movant or petitioner including, but not limited to, the attorney fees and costs incurred by the conservatorship, or the affected parties, in responding to the motions and petitions.

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 15. Probate, Trusts, and Fiduciaries § 15-10-503. Power of a court to address the conduct of a fiduciary--emergencies--nonemergencies

(1) Emergency situations--court action without the requirement of prior notice or hearing.  If it appears to a court that an emergency exists because a fiduciary's actions or omissions pose an imminent risk of substantial harm to a ward's or protected person's health, safety, or welfare or to the financial interests of an estate, the court may, on its own motion or upon the request of an interested person, without a hearing and without following any of the procedures authorized by section 15-10-502 , order the immediate restraint, restriction, or suspension of the powers of the fiduciary;  direct the fiduciary to appear before the court;  or take such further action as the court deems appropriate to protect the ward or protected person or the assets of the estate.  If a court restrains, restricts, or suspends the powers of a fiduciary, the court shall set a hearing and direct that notice be given pursuant to section 15-10-505 .  The clerk of the court shall immediately note the restraint, restriction, or suspension on the fiduciary's letters, if any.  Any action for the removal, surcharge, or sanction of a fiduciary shall be governed by this section.

(2) Nonemergency situations--court action after notice and hearing.  Upon petition by a person who appears to have an interest in an estate, or upon the court's own motion, and after a hearing for which notice to the fiduciary has been provided pursuant to section 15-10-505 , a court may order any one or more of the following:

(a) Supervised administration of a decedent's estate, as described in part 5 of article 12 of this title.  The degree and extent of the supervision shall be endorsed upon the fiduciary's letters, if any.

(b) A temporary restraint on the fiduciary's performance of specified acts of administration, disbursement, or distribution;  a temporary restraint on the fiduciary's exercise of any powers or discharge of any duties of the office of the fiduciary;  or any other order to secure proper performance of the fiduciary's duty if it appears to the court that, in the absence of such an order, the fiduciary may take some action that would unreasonably jeopardize the interest of the petitioner or of some other interested person.  The court may make persons with whom the fiduciary may transact business parties to any order issued pursuant to this paragraph (b).  The restraint shall be endorsed upon the fiduciary's letters, if any.

(c) Additional restrictions on the powers of the fiduciary.  The restrictions shall be endorsed upon the fiduciary's letters, if any.

(d) The suspension of the fiduciary if the court determines that the fiduciary has violated his, her, or its fiduciary duties.  If a court orders the suspension of a fiduciary pursuant to this paragraph (d), the court shall direct that the suspension be endorsed upon the fiduciary's letters, if any.

(e) The appointment of a temporary or permanent successor fiduciary;

(f) A review of the fiduciary's conduct.  If a court orders a review of the fiduciary's conduct, the court shall specify the scope and duration of the review in the court's order.

(g) A surcharge or sanction of the fiduciary pursuant to section 15-10-504 ;

(h) The removal of the fiduciary;  or

(i) Such further relief as the court deems appropriate to protect the ward or protected person or the assets of the estate.

(3) Removal of a fiduciary--procedures.  A court may remove a fiduciary for cause at any time, and the following provisions apply:

(a) If a court orders the removal of a fiduciary, the court shall direct by order the disposition of the assets remaining in the name of, or under the control of, the fiduciary being removed.

(b) If a court orders the removal of a fiduciary, the court shall direct that the fiduciary's letters, if any, be revoked and that such revocation be endorsed upon the fiduciary's letters, if any.

(c) Cause for removal of a fiduciary exists when:

(I) Removal would be in the best interests of the estate;

(II) It is shown that the fiduciary or the person seeking the fiduciary's appointment intentionally misrepresented material facts in the proceedings leading to the fiduciary's appointment;  or

(III) The fiduciary has disregarded an order of the court, has become incapable of discharging the duties of the office, or has mismanaged the estate or failed to perform any duty pertaining to the office.

(4) Petition for removal--temporary restraints on fiduciary powers.  After a fiduciary receives notice of the filing of a petition for his, her, or its removal, the fiduciary shall not act except to account, to correct maladministration, or to preserve the estate.

The conservatorship is not in Colorado. It's in Indiana.

And who knows where the assets are? Not in CO, I would think.

 

[CGray123]

The conservatorship is not in Colorado. It's in Indiana.

I understood that BM had to set up a Colorado conservatorship in order to sell the Puma Path home. Not so?

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

Suzanne Morphew Case Archive is updated. Justice section.

Photobucket

 

[Seattle1]

dbm

 

[kittythehare]

There's this problem lingering in the background where the area is not exactly compatible with cellular/data services including typical GPS monitors. I get the feeling that BM is also going to be the unofficial burden of Sheriff Spezze. MOO

I did as well.
Now they've got to babysit him as well as prosecute him successfully... he'll claim all sorts, I imagine..

 

[kittythehare]

I understood that BM had to set up a Colorado conservatorship in order to sell the Puma Path home. Not so?

I vaguely remember something about that..
@MassGuy , do you know?

 

[kittythehare]

BM is lucky he's ordered to remain in Chaffee County. I don't think he will have a problem with media in the county because it's too inconvenient for them. Just ask any reporter or outlet that covered the court proceedings! I also think locals will continue to let BM be just as they left him alone to work to support himself and his family until his arrest date. Although this would not be possible in the larger metro area, small towns are like that. MOO

I wonder how many supporters he has there and whether his new found status will influence others towards believing he is innocent?

 

[Seattle1]

That's a really good point. It would make sense for someone like Barry to remove the ankle monitor, be out of Chaffee County immediately and then, he'd make a run for a border. Surely he'd be seen. I also believe he'd be armed for this.

He can't go far, in any case - Canada and Mexico aren't going to want him (and I truly think he'd need his passport to get into Canada, although...I suppose he could figure out a different way).

In addition to the ankle monitor, I think BM is going to be the unofficial burden of Sheriff Spezze. There's this underlying problem with the area not being compatible with cellular/data and probably why no GPS monitoring device. I'm curious what he'll be wearing.

 

[MassGuy]

In addition to the ankle monitor, I think BM is going to be the unofficial burden of Sheriff Spezze. There's this underlying problem with the area not being compatible with cellular/data and probably why no GPS monitoring device. I'm curious what he'll be wearing.

I'd prefer some sort of ball and chain.

 

[Seattle1]

I wonder how many supporters he has there and whether his new found status will influence others towards believing he is innocent?

From the locals that have also been attending the hearings, it seems that most were of the opinion of when BM would be arrested, and not if. However, I don't know if the revelation of SM's affair changed some to think this was a crime of passion and not premeditated murder. I don't get the feeling anybody believes he's innocent.

MOO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

No. But it is not black and white. His judgment is not infallible. Just because he weighed the evidence in favor of bail (fairly unprecedented for M1) doesn't mean he got it right. It's not black and white. As the trier of fact, it is his responsibility to decide but to suggest he had no other course of action UNDER THE LAW is silly. So you are making a silly argument. He exercised his responsibility to the best of his ability I am sure. But he put a man on the street who premeditated a capital offense. To say he had no other options is not even arguable. This is not the forum for that, as you well know. TOS

He did not put a man on the street who premeditated a capital offense, he put a man who is legally presumed innocent and for whom the prosecution did not put forth evidence that met the legal test to keep him incarcerated at this point in time. A jury gets to decide and now will decide if he is a man who premeditated a capital offense. It is not your fault, my fault, the judge’s fault or anyone else’s fault except prosecution that he will bond out.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

From the locals that have also been attending the hearings, it seems that most were of the opinion of when BM would be arrested, and not if. However, I don't know if the revelation of SM's affair changed some to think this was a crime of passion and not premeditated murder. I don't get the feeling anybody believes he's innocent.

MOO

I noticed that his pal TS in the video shared upthread was seemingly cautious in his choice of words. He said he had never *seen* anything himself to substantiate the allegations (paraphrasing). I found this interesting, personally.