Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #83

[Skigh]

Maybe when Barry borrows from friends and family, he doesn't think it's a "real" loan.

I wonder if he pays interest on the money he borrows.

 

[DizzyB]

I'm still looking for those "meaningful redactions." Other than the affair revelation, I just don't see it. I said from the beginning, the judge was reaching for any excuse to avoid release rather than following Rule 55.1 and the public's presumed right to know. Not wanting to start that whole discussion again, but PM played his judge privilege to the hilt just because he could. Not because it served a legit legal purpose, IMHO.

Colorado criminal courts have been proven to uphold secrecy to the public's detriment as a matter of course, as has been discussed here re: Denver Post investigations.

Naysayers gonna nay but the redacting of the daughter's names could have been done in five minutes and not have impeded either side in their prep for the prelim.

MOO

Yeah I don’t get keeping the AA secret. Only purpose it served was that Suzanne’s affair came to light before. The order in which things unfolded only gave the public time to bring the pitchforks and torches Suzanne’s way. I think the redactions in the document took less than an hour, and I’m being kind. The Judge kept a lid on the case as long as he was legally able to, in my opinion. Barry can’t accuse the court of harming his defense-although I’m sure the defense will spend plenty of Barry’s money and the court’s time asking for sanctions and fighting discovery.

 

[SouthAussie]

Maybe when Barry borrows from friends and family, he doesn't think it's a "real" loan.

I think the OPs who have mentioned a probable low-reported income are likely correct, with regard to him being able to get a significant bank loan/mortgage.

Many contractors minimse their profits (by under reporting income and/or claiming high expenses) so that their tax liabilities are lower. This has the adverse effect of making them seem unable (to a bank) to make loan/mortgage payments.

And with Suzanne having no reportable income, as a couple they would likely have had great difficulty in getting a mortgage. imo

 

[Bluebythec]

Barry didn't like debt -- but he borrowed $200K from a friend and $100k from his father-in-law to buy the Colorado house? Seems to be quite a non-sequitur.

Maybe the loans from others were interest free?

 

[Scootie98]

Not sure if or why the nonfunctioning dart gun matters. He could load his .22 (regular or short rifle) to fire the dart. To me, any tranq gun found, working or non-working, is a red herring. He claimed to be shooting chipmunks with a .22, AFAIK.

Let's focus on BM putting himself in possession of a .22 at the time SM is known to stop communicating. He didn't have to admit that and yet the FBI has it on record.

Open to correction if I am wrong.

MOO

We don't know two things: How many .22s did Barry have at the house? And...Why was the .22 he turned over to the cops, likely the short rifle a non-functional rifle? Was it disabled?

 

[Deleted member 222031]

We don't know two things: How many .22s did Barry have at the house? And...Why was the .22 he turned over to the cops, likely the short rifle a non-functional rifle? Was it disabled?

Was it? I haven't seen that info about the short rifle. He was charged with illegal possession of it. Please share anything you know about that gun.
TIA

 

[Boxer]

Thank you so much, @NoSI !!

Just wanted to point out that the bolded (below) is interesting! Was Barry always an avid reader, I wonder? (Besides the Bible).

"Mr. Lindsey/Prosecution is next.

3:47 PM: Mr. Lindsey states that if bond is authorized, he recommends 10 Million Dollars, cash only. He estimates that BM has 3 Million Dollars liquid and available to him. There is evidence that BM has been hiding funds from Suzanne. He has no residence in Chaffee County and no longer has ties to the community. Puma Path sold for 1.7 Million Dollars. He has several brokerage accounts and owns silver. Mr. Lindsey stresses that BM committed 1st degree murder and “deliberately and intentionally killed his wife”. There are many that fear for their safety if BM is released on bail. There needs to be a protection order if BM is released on bail. There is evidence that money has been moved around within BMs family. Family has brought books to BM in the jail including about how to survive in nature and what plants are edible. There is danger that BM may flee. Mr. Lindsey also requests that BM is outfitted with an electronic GPS ankle monitor, pretrial services, and that he has to give up his firearms."

BMs bail is 17% of his liquid assets.
Let see, life in prison or forfeiting less than 20% of your money.

MOO Judge Murphy is not looking impartial.
Withholding AA for no discernable reason, minimum bail. Allowing Defense to run on, and take unfair time during Preliminary Hearing.
Wonder if this is his MO.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

BMs bail is 17% of his liquid assets.
Let see, life in prison or forfeiting less than 20% of your money.

MOO Judge Murphy is not looking impartial.
Withholding AA for no discernable reason, minimum bail. Allowing Defense to run on, and take unfair time during Preliminary Hearing.
Wonder if this is his MO.

Despite what some may think, I do not think it is fair to position the judge this way. The prosecution did not even use up all the time the were allowed in the preliminary so seems difficult to say the judge allowed the "defense to run on." and despite what we all might think about Barry's guilt or innocence, he is in Colorado, still presumed innocent under the eyes of the law and because prosecution did not meet the burden of proof positive presumption great the judge was well within the law to allow bail. Whether we think it was "high enough" or "low enough" it doesn't appear out of the norm for these types of trials. In my opinion the judge, if he was partial to the defense, could have dismissed and sent the case back to the prosecution...but he didn't, he sent it on to trial to be determined by a jury which was a "fair" move in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

Despite what some may think, I do not think it is fair to position the judge this way. The prosecution did not even use up all the time the were allowed in the preliminary so seems difficult to say the judge allowed the "defense to run on." and despite what we all might think about Barry's guilt or innocence, he is in Colorado, still presumed innocent under the eyes of the law and because prosecution did not meet the burden of proof positive presumption great the judge was well within the law to allow bail. Whether we think it was "high enough" or "low enough" it doesn't appear out of the norm for these types of trials. In my opinion the judge, if he was partial to the defense, could have dismissed and sent the case back to the prosecution...but he didn't, he sent it on to trial to be determined by a jury which was a "fair" move in my opinion.

Or a politically expedient move.

This judge can be criticized and defended here. That's fair, in my view. I only take issue with those who feel it is out of bounds to question this judge at all. As if the judiciary is sacrosanct and the lowly, unknowledgeable public should shut up and assume the best.

In Colorado, that has proven to be unwise. Mainly because judges have acted in secrecy in an open society. Why was Rule 55.1 needed? Because judges were not required to publicly justify withholding info from their taxpaying constituents who have a presumed RIGHT TO KNOW under the law.

Let's look objectively at what Rule 55.1 gave us in this case: Complete withholding of public information justified by the same motivations in place before the rule was enacted.

Read the judge's orders and motion responses. He is clear that nothing will convince him to lean toward release if he can find any way to withhold. And because he follows the Rule by issuing an order, we are supposed to take his reasoning at face value. I call balderdash.

If following Rule 55.1 places the public's right to know in the same position of being stonewalled as before the Rule, then there was no point in the Colorado judiciary spending two years debating and then passing a watered down version of the Rule fought for by those trying to get Constitutional rights to know upheld.

And that is what happened here IMO.

 

[Scootie98]

Was it? I haven't seen that info about the short rifle. He was charged with illegal possession of it. Please share anything you know about that gun.
TIA

My interpretation is that there is a "tranquilizer dart gun" which was deemed inoperable and also the short rifle for which Barry was charged. What I don't know is whether or not the dart gun carries the same calibur chamber as does the short rifle.....22. I am speculating; but if Barry used a gun to dispense the dart...either weapon would work if the tranq dart fit the chamber. He could have used the short rifle, imo.

 

[CGray123]

I'm still looking for those "meaningful redactions." Other than the affair revelation, I just don't see it. I said from the beginning, the judge was reaching for any excuse to avoid release rather than following Rule 55.1 and the public's presumed right to know. Not wanting to start that whole discussion again, but PM played his judge privilege to the hilt just because he could. Not because it served a legit legal purpose, IMHO.

Colorado criminal courts have been proven to uphold secrecy to the public's detriment as a matter of course, as has been discussed here re: Denver Post investigations.

Naysayers gonna nay but the redacting of the daughter's names could have been done in five minutes and not have impeded either side in their prep for the prelim.

MOO

BBM. LOL!!!!

There you go again, misrepresenting the judge's decision to seal the affidavit, which was actually based on the needs of the parties to understand the case before they could participate in the redaction discussion - not on the need for "meaningful redactions" or some (non-existent) "judge privilege." As has been amply demonstrated in past discussions, the judge followed the law so well the media folded their cards. Folks here can vent all they want but I will call them out when they attack the court with zero justification.

Having given the defense time to learn about the case and have their say, Judge Murphy rejected their arguments and issued the AA with minimal redactions. I'm optimistic he'll reject the motions set for hearing in November as well.

 

[DellaC]

BMs bail is 17% of his liquid assets.
Let see, life in prison or forfeiting less than 20% of your money.

MOO Judge Murphy is not looking impartial.
Withholding AA for no discernable reason, minimum bail. Allowing Defense to run on, and take unfair time during Preliminary Hearing.
Wonder if this is his MO.

It has been stated before that Judge Murphy and Dru Nielsen were both Colorado Deputy Public Defenders at the same time, he from 1992 (?)-2012 and she from 1997-2007. How well do they know each other?

Also, this may have been posted already, but it's the judge's 2015 ratings Murphy Performance Review.

And Linda Stanley's tattoo reads (in Latin) ‘seek peace and truth through justice for the greater glory of God’. [Ref. Stanley article]

 

[Momofthreeboys]

My interpretation is that there is a "tranquilizer dart gun" which was deemed inoperable and also the short rifle for which Barry was charged. What I don't know is whether or not the dart gun carries the same calibur chamber as does the short rifle.....22. I am speculating; but if Barry used a gun to dispense the dart...either weapon would work if the tranq dart fit the chamber. He could have used the short rifle, imo.

Seems to me if and it is a huge if he used a rifle to fire a dart he had plenty of time to clean the rifle. I'm not sure if they can tell if a rifle has recently been fired if it is cleaned.

 

[Seattle1]

It has been stated before that Judge Murphy and Dru Nielsen were both Colorado Deputy Public Defenders at the same time, he from 1992 (?)-2012 and she from 1997-2007. How well do they know each other?

Also, this may have been posted already, but it's the judge's 2015 ratings Murphy Performance Review.

And Linda Stanley's tattoo reads (in Latin) ‘seek peace and truth through justice for the greater glory of God’. [Ref. Stanley article]

Unless DN appeared in front of Judge Murphy's court before, I doubt their paths ever crossed prior to this case:

Judge Murphy worked as a Deputy State Public Defender for 20 years prior to his appointment as District Court judge. For 10 of those years, he headed the Salida Regional Office of the Colorado State Public Defender. Judge Murphy has lived and worked in the 11th Judicial District since 1995.

Colorado Judicial Branch - Bio

 

[sk716]

We don't know two things: How many .22s did Barry have at the house? And...Why was the .22 he turned over to the cops, likely the short rifle a non-functional rifle? Was it disabled?

He probably had a few .22's. Every hunter has a couple of .22s ranging from their favorite snake rifle, to the one they teach the grandkids to shoot with.

In Barry's case, the non-functional dart gun was in the garage. Barry handed over the sawed off .22, his "chipmunk" gun through the truck door sometime after the fact when LE was pretty sure he hadn't handed over ALL of his weapons. I don't have the AA handy to give the page number, but we've all seen the screencap of Barry handing a gun out of a truck window. *SMH*, what a maroon, Barry makes me facepalm a lot.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

He probably had a few .22's. Every hunter has a couple of .22s ranging from their favorite snake rifle, to the one they teach the grandkids to shoot with.

In Barry's case, the non-functional dart gun was in the garage. Barry handed over the sawed off .22, his "chipmunk" gun through the truck door sometime after the fact when LE was pretty sure he hadn't handed over ALL of his weapons. I don't have the AA handy to give the page number, but we've all seen the screencap of Barry handing a gun out of a truck window. *SMH*, what a maroon, Barry makes me facepalm a lot.

Was it a sawed off rifle? I was assuming it was a short barrel rifle that was legal in Indiana, but not in Colorado.

 

[CGray123]

Or a politically expedient move.

This judge can be criticized and defended here. That's fair, in my view. I only take issue with those who feel it is out of bounds to question this judge at all. As if the judiciary is sacrosanct and the lowly, unknowledgeable public should shut up and assume the best.

In Colorado, that has proven to be unwise. Mainly because judges have acted in secrecy in an open society. Why was Rule 55.1 needed? Because judges were not required to publicly justify withholding info from their taxpaying constituents who have a presumed RIGHT TO KNOW under the law.

Let's look objectively at what Rule 55.1 gave us in this case: Complete withholding of public information justified by the same motivations in place before the rule was enacted.

Read the judge's orders and motion responses. He is clear that nothing will convince him to lean toward release if he can find any way to withhold. And because he follows the Rule by issuing an order, we are supposed to take his reasoning at face value. I call balderdash.

If following Rule 55.1 places the public's right to know in the same position of being stonewalled as before the Rule, then there was no point in the Colorado judiciary spending two years debating and then passing a watered down version of the Rule fought for by those trying to get Constitutional rights to know upheld.

And that is what happened here IMO.

If you truly don't want to start this conversation again, why do you keep setting up the same straw men, throwing out the same red herrings, and making the same misleading and fallacious arguments? Ignorance and cynicism don't form the basis for fair criticism of anyone IMO, let alone personal criticism of a judge who is simply following the law.

As I said before:

"The press made this argument for a Constitutional right to media access in the 2018 case of In re Colorado v. Sir Mario Owens. The Colorado Supreme Court didn't bite:

'... (W)e have never recognized any such constitutional right—whether under the First Amendment or Article II, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution. Petitioner’s near-exclusive reliance on this court’s opinion in Wingfield is misplaced. In Wingfield, we analyzed a statutory prohibition against the inspection of court records in pending cases by non-parties. See, 410 P.2d at 512. We concluded that while no “absolute right to examine” court records exists, inspection may be permitted “at the discretion of the court.” Id.at 513. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, this court did not hold in Wingfield that limiting access to court records violates the First Amendment. See, id. We decline to do so now in the absence of any indication from the nation’s high court that access to all criminal justice records is a constitutionally guaranteed right belonging to the public at large.

We also see no compelling reason to interpret our state constitution as guaranteeing such a sweeping—and previously unrecognized—right of unfettered access to criminal justice records. On the contrary, such a ruling would do violence to the comprehensive open records laws and administrative procedures currently in place—including, but not limited to, the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act, §§24-72-301 to -309, C.R.S. (2017)—that are predicated upon the absence of a constitutionally guaranteed right of access to criminal justice records.'

The media petitioned the SCOTUS for review of this decision. The petition was denied. There is no constitutional right of access.

I tend to agree with you that the laws should change to provide more access in this day and age, and I hope the new Rule 55.1 will facilitate a careful, experience-based evolution of the rules.

But advocates who suggest the law already provides for more access than Judge Murphy allowed in this case are misrepresenting the law. The CFOIC and its media clients folded their hand because they knew an appeal would not bring change.

@Seattle1 is right. Legislation is the fast way to change the law regarding access. Whether fast change in this area is wise change is a matter in dispute, so the legislature may take its time, too..".

Judge Murphy's decision was based on the extraordinary length of the AA, the basic necessity of having meaningful input from the parties before issuing it, and the undeniable fact that this would be a time consuming process. No stonewalling, just common sense. And since most felony cases involve a three page affidavit, this aspect of the decision is unlikely to be copied any time soon. The sky is not falling on the principle of responsible openness articulated in Rule 55.1, which the CFOIC hailed (rightly, IMO) as, "...(T)ruly a cause for celebration.”

 

[Megnut]

Seems to me if and it is a huge if he used a rifle to fire a dart he had plenty of time to clean the rifle. I'm not sure if they can tell if a rifle has recently been fired if it is cleaned.

Well, I can't tell whether a gun's been fired recently, but I imagine that BM, the self-proclaimed hunter, can. And HE said his .22 had recently been fired. In his backyard. Within minutes and inches of SN's last known location. Shooting antlerless chipmunks. Because that's what hunters do.

May I also point out, that although an officer thought Barry's tranquilizer gun appeared to be inoperable, didn't Barry himself assure them he had tranquilized deer as recently as April, 2020? Didn't he even go so far as to say exactly where he stood to do so?

I wonder if LE mentioned finding a syringe cap.... and Barry, perhaps recalled filling a syringe in that very area, in a month like April, just one flip of the calendar later.... and filled in his story accordingly.

I wonder if HE face-palmed his own self when LE or the AA laid out where it was actually found.

The weakest stories are the ones that circle wide of the truth.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

Well, I can't tell whether a gun's been fired recently, but I imagine that BM, the self-proclaimed hunter, can. And HE said his .22 had recently been fired. In his backyard. Within minutes and inches of SN's last known location. Shooting antlerless chipmunks. Because that's what hunters do.

May I also point out, that although an officer thought Barry's tranquilizer gun appeared to be inoperable, didn't Barry himself assure them he had tranquilized deer as recently as April, 2020? Didn't he even go so far as to say exactly where he stood to do so?

I wonder if LE mentioned finding a syringe cap.... and Barry, perhaps recalled filling a syringe in that very area, in a month like April, just one flip of the calendar later.... and filled in his story accordingly.

I wonder if HE face-palmed his own self when LE or the AA laid out where it was actually found.

The weakest stories are the ones that circle wide of the truth.

But that's just my opinion.

BBM. Backed by some very fine truths. Excellent, simply excellent.

Can you imagine how many happy face palms Agent Grusing experienced as BM kept spinning his increasingly evidentiary yarns.

And when they unravel in court, freedom will be over for the wife killer.

IMO

 

[WellThen]

Yeah I don’t get keeping the AA secret. Only purpose it served was that Suzanne’s affair came to light before. The order in which things unfolded only gave the public time to bring the pitchforks and torches Suzanne’s way. I think the redactions in the document took less than an hour, and I’m being kind. The Judge kept a lid on the case as long as he was legally able to, in my opinion. Barry can’t accuse the court of harming his defense-although I’m sure the defense will spend plenty of Barry’s money and the court’s time asking for sanctions and fighting discovery.

Agree. The redactions were a joke, super easy to deduce most if not all of them. It's odd that the AA was sealed for so long. It is sort of salacious, but not really, in this day and age it's just another tragic account of a controlling man killing his wife. Besides, Barry is not a celebrity of any sort. Maybe the judge was throwing the defense a bone and trying to head off any future objections. Maybe the judge was also trying to shield the underage daugter? Thought that one daughter only recently turned 18?

just my opinion