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

[Boxer]

Can anyone identify what is to the left of the propane tank, on the left side of the photo? Looks almost like a stack of tires? I don't recall seeing that before.

My guess is a stack if tree pots.

 

[sk716]

Can anyone identify what is to the left of the propane tank, on the left side of the photo? Looks almost like a stack of tires? I don't recall seeing that before.

Tires, assorted junk Barry didn't want to pay to get rid of.

Screencap CBS Denver

 

[mrjitty]

The GPS we have after the "Power Removal Event" is all related to vehicle operations, doors opening and closing, cab lights coming on, etc.

The FBI does not have digital proof that Barry went to Garfield, he didn't park and open a door. They had a mileage discrepancy from the drive Barry said he made and Grusing pushed Barry into admitting he turned left.

Which seems curious, as it is likely the GPS is continuously logging - or does it only log when an "event" occurs?

This is why I wonder if he did remove the SYNC/GPS fuse for the Garfield trip, and put it back in later.

 

[mrjitty]

I can only speak to what I've seen working systems and software engineering on avionics systems, where the systems recognize that they are going down (losing power) and power is held up long enough to log the power off event, whether it is expected or not. I don't know if cars are designed the same way, but it seems like it's possible, given the power removal action logged in the Reboot Events log. (At least that is what I think it says.) It could have just been a momentary power interruption, or something longer, but it's impossible to tell IMO. The next event listed in the telematics data is not for another ~1.5 hours. All we can ascertain is that at that 1.5 hours point, there was enough power to log stuff.

I agree this seems likely. It logged the power off event, which Grusing said was in the nature of a reboot

 

[mrjitty]

I’ve been slammed at work but still keeping up in the background. Not sure if this has been discussed but, the fact that the most recent filing BM attorney mentions on page 5 the “validity” of the search warrants of SD home, interesting she brings up cards, letters and mentions her attorneys will challenge the validity of the search warrants. Man, I am dying to know what the result of those warrants are. !!

See this is where I think the defence motion was muddying the waters and not making a clear legal argument.

Her lawyers could challenge the validity of the warrants (and thus admissibility of evidence obtained pursuant to the warrants) in her case.

In the trial of BM, it would be the defence who would challenge the admissibility of the evidence - not her lawyers.

At least that is my understanding of it.

 

[mrjitty]

That's what I am concerned about in this case - the attorneys' duty of loyalty. BM's interests may well conflict with SD's before the end of this case.

RSBM - great post - i just cut it down to focus on this aspect for my reply.

I agree this conflicts can well arise in their representaton. I just don't think a conflict arises at BM's trial, where she is merely a witness. But you might argue there is a conflict in terms of how she is being advised outside of the murder trial - that she really needs independent advice and not to be part of "Team Barry"

 

[Love Never Fails]

I absolutely agree with all your thoughts on this.
Here is the AA for SD trespassing charge as a refresher.

https://www.fox21news.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2021/09/21M351-Darke-Redacted-Affidavit.pdf

A million dollar property that had just been purchased 6 months earlier by an out of town owner as a vacation rental, not occupied full-time.
A property with clearly posted No Trespassing signage.
A property that was previously occupied by a woman who disappeared from there and is assumed murdered.
A property that is very well known to locals and a place of curiousity.
It was the current owner’s decision to press charges and I would have done the same tbh - no matter who the perp was.
I would want a permanent restraining order also after seeing an unknown person on my surveillance cameras skulking around on foot and not ringing the doorbell or attempting to leave a note ( as if they KNEW they shouldn’t be on my property).
IMO

Not only that.
What if the owner had rented the home for a few days and SD scared the tenter by showing up and picking up a package? I can see the rental review now. That’s a creep factor all by itself. The new home owner should have pressed charges no matter who did it and SDs little butt should have been in the slammer for a couple of days. She and BM feel entitled.

 

[CGray123]

RSBM - great post - i just cut it down to focus on this aspect for my reply.

I agree this conflicts can well arise in their representaton. I just don't think a conflict arises at BM's trial, where she is merely a witness. But you might argue there is a conflict in terms of how she is being advised outside of the murder trial - that she really needs independent advice and not to be part of "Team Barry"

You're right about independence issue, especially if we assume BM is paying for her counsel. Here's an example of how the Supreme Court, listening to BigLaw, tries to enable ethical walls without expressly approving of them:

Rule 1.8. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules

(f) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless:

(1) the client gives informed consent;

(2) there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and

(3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by Rule 1.6.

To me, this rule begs the question whether a lawyer can plausibly say s/he is able to ignore the influence or demands of the person paying the piper. In the BM/SD situation, where one marriage has partners in both firms, there is no argument that passes the giggle test IMO.

In fact, it occurs to me that BM's Rule 21 motion was intended to preclude the prosecution from discovering the marriage and demanding that E&N be disqualified by Murphy.

I take your "mere witness" point, which is well made, but I hesitate to embrace it before we know whether SD has actual exposure to charges as a conspirator or accessory. She has clearly been the focus of intense scrutiny, and her decision to help BM with package pickup seems to have opened up access to her accounts as the early search of her home did not. I don't know if they have enough to charge her but it could get very interesting for BM if she is subpoenaed and cross examined by the prosecution as a hostile witness and pleads the Fifth Amendment in response to questions along those lines.

Which brings me back to the question whether these two firms can serve these two clients with the degree of loyalty required by the Colorado Rules of Professional Responsibility.

 

[CGray123]

...and just to complete my thought about the McDermott firm playing a role in BM's proceedings, it would not surprise me if they enter an appearance to quash her subpoena, on the grounds that she intends to take the Fifth to all questions. BM would then claim this would be unfairly prejudicial to his defense, violate his due process, etc.

Sorry, I hit the post reply button before wrapping up. The cat helped....

 

[Momofthreeboys]

You're right about independence issue, especially if we assume BM is paying for her counsel. Here's an example of how the Supreme Court, listening to BigLaw, tries to enable ethical walls without expressly approving of them:

Rule 1.8. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules

(f) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless:

(1) the client gives informed consent;

(2) there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and

(3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by Rule 1.6.

To me, this rule begs the question whether a lawyer can plausibly say s/he is able to ignore the influence or demands of the person paying the piper. In the BM/SD situation, where one marriage has partners in both firms, there is no argument that passes the giggle test IMO.

In fact, it occurs to me that BM's Rule 21 motion was intended to preclude the prosecution from discovering the marriage and demanding that E&N be disqualified by Murphy.

I take your "mere witness" point, which is well made, but I hesitate to embrace it before we know whether SD has actual exposure to charges as a conspirator or accessory. She has clearly been the focus of intense scrutiny, and her decision to help BM with package pickup seems to have opened up access to her accounts as the early search of her home did not. I don't know if they have enough to charge her but it could get very interesting for BM if she is subpoenaed and cross examined by the prosecution as a hostile witness and pleads the Fifth Amendment in response to questions along those likes.

Which brings me back to the question whether these two firms can serve these two clients with the degree of loyalty required by the Colorado Rules of Professional Responsibility.

If she pleads the fifth that doesn't bode well for prosecution at all in my opinion and gives very much reasonable doubt to a potential jury...I think prosecution needs to tread very, very carefully where they are going with this investigation of SD relative to the charges they filed and ran with. The fifth is about self incrimination....and does nothing to support the prosecution theory Barry did it and he acted alone and he ran around at the speed of light and shot his wife with a dart gun then hid her body in the dead of the night so no one could find her. If I were a juror and heard SD plead the fifth my reaction would be "heck she could have done it and BM is covering up or helped her."

 

[CGray123]

If she pleads the fifth that doesn't bode well for prosecution at all in my opinion and gives very much reasonable doubt to a potential jury...I think prosecution needs to tread very, very carefully where they are going with this investigation of SD relative to the charges they filed and ran with. The fifth is about self incrimination....and does nothing to support the prosecution theory Barry did it and he acted alone and he ran around at the speed of light and shot his wife with a dart gun then hid her body in the dead of the night so no one could find her. If I were a juror and heard SD plead the fifth my reaction would be "heck she could have done it and BM is covering up or helped her."

Since the investigation is ongoing, we don't know what the ultimate theory of the case will be, so I respectfully disagree with your assessment. For all I know, the DA is already considering charges against SD and negotiating for her testimony.

If it does come down to her taking the witness stand and saying, "I can't respond because my answer may incriminate me," the effect on the jury depends on what those questions are. So, I must disagree there, too.

 

[Love Never Fails]

If she pleads the fifth that doesn't bode well for prosecution at all in my opinion and gives very much reasonable doubt to a potential jury...I think prosecution needs to tread very, very carefully where they are going with this investigation of SD relative to the charges they filed and ran with. The fifth is about self incrimination....and does nothing to support the prosecution theory Barry did it and he acted alone and he ran around at the speed of light and shot his wife with a dart gun then hid her body in the dead of the night so no one could find her. If I were a juror and heard SD plead the fifth my reaction would be "heck she could have done it and BM is covering up or helped her."

It doesn’t make BM any less guilty.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Since the investigation is ongoing, we don't know what the ultimate theory of the case will be, so I respectfully disagree with your assessment. For all I know, the DA is already considering charges against SD and negotiating for her testimony.

If it does come down to her taking the witness stand and saying, "I can't respond because my answer may incriminate me," the effect on the jury depends on what those questions are. So, I must disagree there, too.

IMO, the jury is going to know BM is guilty. Whether they think she played a part won’t matter in his guilt. Hope he gets 156 years plus, as Patrick Frazee did.

 

[sk716]

Since the investigation is ongoing, we don't know what the ultimate theory of the case will be, so I respectfully disagree with your assessment. For all I know, the DA is already considering charges against SD and negotiating for her testimony.

If it does come down to her taking the witness stand and saying, "I can't respond because my answer may incriminate me," the effect on the jury depends on what those questions are. So, I must disagree there, too.

I'd like to add that pleading the fifth can easily lead to a brand spanking new trial with brand spanking new charges all the way around.

 

[Lyanna]

I was curious as to whether BM may have a Christmas Dinner in his new digs (imo) next year and found this

https://prisonerresource.com/prison-life/first-day-in-prison/what-do-you-eat-in-prison/

I know BM has had a taster of jail life, was wondering if he ever took the time to research how to prepare for prison life? This resource advises you to get into good shape before being incarcerated as well as sorting out your finances and so on.

I found it fascinating, but it didn't answer my Christmas Dinner question.

 

[Murphy1950]

Oooooo cards and letters!! Are the just-friends swapping love notes? Valentine's Day cards perhaps? Love letters on Antler's letterhead? Oh, please let it all be dated.
Can someone remind me? Does Hallmark have a happy dumpsterversary section?

Sleeping double with a single ankle monitor... sexy. JMO

RSBM
Actually they do, Hallmark has a card featuring a dumpster, quite appropriate, but I don't want to risk a time out for either of us. Your observations have been too hot as of late. Don't you just hate it when your ankle monitors get twisted together?

Remember back when Barry tried to convince us all of how much Suzanne loved him with old anniversary cards

In the interview at the time, Barry said it was a Valentines 2020 card.
He shared a letter Suzanne wrote to him in February for Valentines Day. It’s the last note he has from her.
“Just want you to know – my life would be nothing without your love and the excitement you bring to our marriage and my life. All my love – Suzanne”

I guess she mailed it from Florida, where she spent Valentines 2020 with JL.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Since the investigation is ongoing, we don't know what the ultimate theory of the case will be, so I respectfully disagree with your assessment. For all I know, the DA is already considering charges against SD and negotiating for her testimony.

If it does come down to her taking the witness stand and saying, "I can't respond because my answer may incriminate me," the effect on the jury depends on what those questions are. So, I must disagree there, too.

As far as the prosecution theory...IMO they would be wise to "change it". We will just disagree on the impact a prosecution witness pleading the 5th has a jury. As far as the judge favoring the defense, again and not something I think you've commented about that I've disagreed with, I think he is doing everything in his power to drag our the motions...to sanction anyone in the prosecutor's office right now would be a negative perception of the prosecution that could help the defense showing once again his lack of bias.

 

[MassGuy]

If she pleads the fifth that doesn't bode well for prosecution at all in my opinion and gives very much reasonable doubt to a potential jury...I think prosecution needs to tread very, very carefully where they are going with this investigation of SD relative to the charges they filed and ran with. The fifth is about self incrimination....and does nothing to support the prosecution theory Barry did it and he acted alone and he ran around at the speed of light and shot his wife with a dart gun then hid her body in the dead of the night so no one could find her. If I were a juror and heard SD plead the fifth my reaction would be "heck she could have done it and BM is covering up or helped her."

Her being implicated does nothing to separate Barry from this.

It's not like you can introduce her as the killer, and exonerate him.

Suzanne's footprint ceased as soon as Barry arrived home.

Her phone shut off just as he was leaving the house.

His phone is outside when he claimed to be sleeping, at the time the bike had to have been dumped.

He put himself at the helmet location.

He admits to a frantic event in the backyard, solidifying the phone data (chipmunk). This "speed of light" nonsense ignores his confession, which is way more important than the defense interpretation of the data (they also used a different program).

He admits to the dart being used, by confessing to another crime that absolutely did not occur (tranquilizing deer from the breezeway).

He admits to owning those materials, and possibly getting rid of them on the very day he made those trash dumps (what a coincidence.)

He lied to the FBI about the state of their marriage, working on that wall, and where he was when he received that phone call from the Ritters.

If Shoshona helped, she certainly didn't stay for dinner (unless she and Barry shared that one plate).

I'm absolutely open to her being involved in some capacity, but even a conspiracy doesn't absolve Barry.

 

[sk716]

Her being implicated does nothing to separate Barry from this.

It's not like you can introduce her as the killer, and exonerate him.

Suzanne's footprint ceased as soon as Barry arrived home.

Her phone shut off just as he was leaving the house.

His phone is outside when he claimed to be sleeping, at the time the bike had to have been dumped.

He put himself at the helmet location.

He admits to a frantic event in the backyard, solidifying the phone data (chipmunk). This "speed of light" nonsense ignores his confession, which is way more important than the defense interpretation of the data (they also used a different program).

He admits to the dart being used, by confessing to another crime that absolutely did not occur (tranquilizing deer from the breezeway).

He admits to owning those materials, and possibly getting rid of them on the very day he made those trash dumps (what a coincidence.)

He lied to the FBI about the state of their marriage, working on that wall, and where he was when he received that phone call from the Ritters.

If Shoshona helped, she certainly didn't stay for dinner (unless she and Barry shared that one plate).

I'm absolutely open to her being involved in some capacity, but even a conspiracy doesn't absolve Barry.

I don't think she helped. I do have a lot of questions about what was on her phone before she got to deleting. I wouldn't be surprised if he set her up as accessory after the fact so he has something to hold over her.

 

[MassGuy]

I don't think she helped. I do have a lot of questions about what was on her phone before she got to deleting. I wouldn't be surprised if he set her up as accessory after the fact so he has something to hold over her.

I agree. If she was involved, the overwhelmingly likely scenario is that it was after the fact.

We know what the trigger to this event was (Suzanne asking for a divorce), which means the plot had to come together quickly.

The motive was his, and he needed no help in the actual murder (I think it would have been a lot cleaner if he did have help with that aspect though).

As for her deleting things on her phone, I believe that it had to do with them being engaged in a romantic relationship.

It doesn't matter much though, as no one believes he was staying overnight at her house so they could "talk."

Not to mention the hotel room and Valentines Day flowers.