Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #88

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #681
N0pe.
(Discussion of Exhibit 4)

SA Grusing turned to communications between Suzanne and her lover, “Fred.” Barry was shown the photo of Suzanne dated April 14,2020 and asked if he thought she looked high. He said, “Yeah.” SA Grusing clarified, “She looks intoxicated to you?” Barry stated, “Yes. Do you mind if I read?”


Page 99 of 129


http://www.[link removed]/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/AA_Text_html_mc307661.png





Barry asked, “Is this him or her?” Agents explained the messages and photos were Suzanne’s sides of the texting to her lover. After reading a few pages, Barry said, “Yeah, she looks intoxicated on every picture I’ve seen so far.”


SA Grusing pointed to a photo of Suzanne wearing a red shirt on April18, 2020 and asked, “That one?” Barry said, “Yep.”


http://www.[link removed]/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/AA_Text_html_m61b63e65.png


After continuing to read through the texts, Barry said, “She’s sayin’ she’s wearin’?” He was referencing the 04/21/2020 photo of Suzanne wearing a yellow and white shirt with her text, “Thanks baby. I wear it for you.”


Barry stopped reading, sat down and Agents asked if he had thoughts. He said, “That’s pretty hurtful.”


As to the cameras in the house:

SA Harris asked if Barry knew what the fight was about and he said, “She was accusing me of having an affair and she accused me of having cameras in the house, watching her every move.”


When SA Grusing asked if Barry had functioning game cameras, he said, “I had game cameras, I think all of them were in the safe, they took ’em all. I, the game cameras I had outside, sometimes I put ’em by the drive just to see if somebody’s coming in and out when I’m gone. But most of the time I’m trying to get a picture of a deer, an elk or a bear. But, I had no cameras in the house. I’ve never used a camera in the house and she was just absolutely sure that I had cameras in the house.”


Barry said he monitored the cameras with a “little SD card” that he could put into a computer. He added, “Yeah, and, urn, even the outside cameras, she thought that, ‘Oh you’re watchin’, or your girlfriend is watchin’ you on the outside cameras.’ I said, ‘Honey, the outside cameras don’t even work.’ And, but she was just certain that if like, I was outside with her and doing something in the yard, she would say, ‘I know she’s watchin’ you.’ Just stupid stuff, and I’m like, that’s why these, the only reason that these fights happen is because she’s accusin’ me. And I never understood them until now; she’s accusing me because she wants to justify her relationship.”
...
SA Grusing interjected to point to the “Knew I was looking at phone in bonus” line from Suzanne’s grievance list and asked Barry about that. He stated, “She thought I had cameras in the deer eyes of my mounts. She thought there were cameras in there, and I threatened to rip ’em out and prove it. I didn’t want to tear my deer mounts up, but,” SA Grusing interjected to ask if Suzanne talked to Barry about him seeing her on her phone.

I think Barry is setting her up to be a crazy paranoid drunk who ripped out all of the security camera wires.

I think you may be correct about that. Plus, even if she did get drunk now and then (I might too if I were married to that neanderthal), and even if she really did accuse Barry of having an affair as a result of her own guilt over her own affair (and no one is saying any of this is true, but this appears to be the picture Barry wants us to see) none of that ever justifies what happened to her.

Essentially, Barry is victim blaming.
 
  • #682
Grusing shows Barry the last proof of life of Suzanne and Barry volunteered that she looked drunk. No one asked him, from what I can tell.

From page 70/129 of AA:
Barry said he had to go to work but agreed to see the photo of Suzanne's last proof of life.

Barry looked at the photo and said, "Well, look at her. She's obviously drunk. Look at her eyes. Do you know what drunk eyes look like?" He added, "I mean, would you say those eyes are drunk eyes?"

SA Grusing said bloodshot eyes are what he looks for.

Barry said, "No, it's, it's the la-the lazy eyes is what I see in her and she drank-"
Thank you, that's what I garnered from the hearing, it was all Barry. What I see, especially in her bathing suit photo (THE photo he was shown, I believe), is a sensuous/loving look in her eyes. One that he may never have seen before. He had a plan, or I should say, a new plan each time more evidence came to light. Guarantee his lawyers thought that up. Smear, smear, smear her reputation. They definitely don't want a failure on their record.
 
  • #683
Wishing you all a very Happy and Healthy New Year! :)
 
  • #684
  • #685
FYI… Denver having large grass fires. 580 homes destroyed. 80 mph winds. Fires now moving into Broomfield, CO.

Ugh. I'm so, so sorry to see this.

Prayers for All Concerned.
 
Last edited:
  • #686
Happy New Year, Websleuth's friends.

Back next year with the story of my drive through the gorgeous Salida.

Xo

Swedeheart
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0205.jpeg
    IMG_0205.jpeg
    85.2 KB · Views: 47
  • #687
  • #688
Thank a million
One page
Thank a million
on top of Page 52 of the 131 page AA, GD states he used his fire radio to communicate with Barry, Barry was in Buena Vista. My thoughts are that Barry had his fire radio and could hear near all communications that FD, PD and all entities that were programmed into the radios. From experience the radios can communicate at least 75 mi or more depending on the power of the communication equipment. I think he was listening to all communications from the first call to PD that Suzanne was missing. I have to wander if he still has his radio! These radios are usually purchased by the volunteers using them, so it would be his property . Nothing was a surprise to Barry when he arrived on the bike scene IMO, he had been listening to all communications. Did anybody think to delete his radio out of the local systems. Is he still listening?
 
  • #689
One page

on top of Page 52 of the 131 page AA, GD states he used his fire radio to communicate with Barry, Barry was in Buena Vista. My thoughts are that Barry had his fire radio and could hear near all communications that FD, PD and all entities that were programmed into the radios. From experience the radios can communicate at least 75 mi or more depending on the power of the communication equipment. I think he was listening to all communications from the first call to PD that Suzanne was missing. I have to wander if he still has his radio! These radios are usually purchased by the volunteers using them, so it would be his property . Nothing was a surprise to Barry when he arrived on the bike scene IMO, he had been listening to all communications. Did anybody think to delete his radio out of the local systems. Is he still listening?
I wondered if he helped through the recent devastation? Nothing speaks volumes like hey I’m here to help despite the fact I am a wife killing homicidal maniac.
Prayers for all of Colorado who have lost things. My recent understanding is that there are no lives lost. Happy New Year to all. I hope for peace, health and safety. It’s been a rough couple of years and I hope we all thrive in 2022. Peace and justice will benefit everyone.
 
  • #690
 
  • #691
HNY!


I don't agree that "counsel" is limited to defense counsel. The rule certainly does not contain a definition to that effect.

I prefer to interpret the list in context (but I agree you don't have to do that).

>>> the case
>>> parties to the case
>>> counsel to the parties to the case.

the judge appears to agree

So even though the McDermott firm is not an attorney for a party to the case, they are involved "with respect to the case".

So the judge seems to have focussed on a potential for perception of bias as regards "the case" rather than as regards "counsel" - a very broad opening.


The rule is written very broadly, so I don't think the judge was over-interpreting it. If it isn't specific to these circumstances, it becomes so when you apply the ethical requirement is to avoid even the appearance that his decisions are not impartial. He found that he had no choice but to recuse himself under that standard. Although I regret that he found himself in this position, I agree that he had to get off the case.

No judge wants to create appealable error, especially in such a serious case. The right decision is also the safe decision, but that doesn't signify that the judge had ulterior motives to get off the case.

I think the judge is correct as to how he interprets the law, but I am still unsure how the facts meet the law.

The witness is a prosecution witness, who will examined at trial by the prosecution attorney. The defence may object to questions, and oppose the admissibility of evidence. I just don't see how exactly the witnesses attorney is an active participant at the trial - beyond advising the witness.

It seems the judge anticipates the witness attorney might make legal arguments before the court, which seems odd to me, but then I don't know Colorado practice.
 
  • #692
I think the judge is correct as to how he interprets the law, but I am still unsure how the facts meet the law.

The witness is a prosecution witness, who will examined at trial by the prosecution attorney. The defence may object to questions, and oppose the admissibility of evidence. I just don't see how exactly the witnesses attorney is an active participant at the trial - beyond advising the witness.

It seems the judge anticipates the witness attorney might make legal arguments before the court, which seems odd to me, but then I don't know Colorado practice.
RSBM. BBM. This is precisely the possibility that the motion describes, that the prosecution's response does not refute, and that Judge M specifies in his opinion as problematic. I think it's a safe bet that Colorado courts allow this.

From my own experience as a subpoenaed person in U.S. District Court, a witness can ask the judge (through his or her own counsel if s/he chooses) to quash the subpoena or, in the alternative, to limit the scope of testimony. This request is normally considered in a separate hearing before the trial, but it is the witness's counsel - not the defense attorney - that argues the motion. I imagine that if the testimony is limited, the witness's counsel would be able at trial to object to prosecution questions that exceed the limit.
 
Last edited:
  • #693
No mask, no blindfold.

View attachment 328092 View attachment 328093

I have no doubt he hid a camera in the 'bonus' room but any indication that she thought the deer was watching her was Barry trying to make her sound like a crazy person.
From the R/E listing photos, page 23. Might this be the mounted animal in SM's photo? It overlooks SM's desk area.
a96a42a94c7e3310e0e1b969063a188d-uncropped_scaled_within_1344_1008.jpg

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/19057-Puma-Path-Salida-CO-81201/96847591_zpid/?mmlb=g,22

I don't know what type of animal this is, my expertise ends at chipmunks.

Wishing everyone a Healthy, Happy and Bountiful New Year:)
 
  • #694
From the R/E listing photos, page 23. Might this be the mounted animal in SM's photo? It overlooks SM's desk area.
a96a42a94c7e3310e0e1b969063a188d-uncropped_scaled_within_1344_1008.jpg

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/19057-Puma-Path-Salida-CO-81201/96847591_zpid/?mmlb=g,22

I don't know what type of animal this is, my expertise ends at chipmunks.

Wishing everyone a Healthy, Happy and Bountiful New Year:)

Yes, IMO, that's the one.

In the same listing, there's a good shot of the bedroom door frame. I think the bonus room is staged with double beds and you can see the corner of the primary bed beyond it.

I wonder if that splintering got repaired.

Amid Barry's description of the woulds and usuallys of 5/9, he did say Suzanne was doing the sheets -- the free-for-all while he was in the garage, tinkering and Killing Time.

If he accosted her in the mudroom/breezeway, she could've bolted in desperation for her room, but would he have had the forethought just then to switch his phone to airplane mode? Weird that was on his mind at all.

Maybe he hit airplane mode just before entering the house? Catching Suzanne in the breezeway after all. It is where he deersplained a dart...

He paints a chilling portrait.

JMO
 
  • #695
My guess if it was a crack in the door jamb he left it for the new owner to fill and sand. If it was greater damage to the jamb the jamb would need to be replaced so again it either got left to the new owner or he replaced the jamb. I can’t recall from the court documents whether it was a vertical crack or if the damage was greater to the jamb. Different people are using different language.
 
  • #696
  • #697
My guess if it was a crack in the door jamb he left it for the new owner to fill and sand. If it was greater damage to the jamb the jamb would need to be replaced so again it either got left to the new owner or he replaced the jamb. I can’t recall from the court documents whether it was a vertical crack or if the damage was greater to the jamb. Different people are using different language.

Pic from the AA.
AA_Text_html_m76a56418adjusted.png
 
  • #698
Anybody think we could petition the court for the digital images that appear in the AA? Because this photocopy of a photocopy business is a PITA.
 
  • #699
Anybody think we could petition the court for the digital images that appear in the AA? Because this photocopy of a photocopy business is a PITA.
Are we still awaiting other documents? If so what is the hold up and how do we go about getting them? TIA.
 
  • #700
Thanks I thought I recalled it was a cracked. He wouldn’t be fighting the fires near Boulder anyway…wrong county. I found out today a friend lost his home:-( let us all hope 2022 is a much better year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
2,517
Total visitors
2,645

Forum statistics

Threads
632,144
Messages
18,622,666
Members
243,034
Latest member
RepresentingTheLBC
Back
Top