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

[Love Never Fails]

No, in Barry's own interviews he claimed over and over and over he loved her. Prosecution is not going down some of the rabbit holes we do and they can't attack his character by law with very, very few exceptions. We can chat about his character flaws or speculate he's got some personality trait that doesn't allow him to love, all that stuff but trying a man for murdering his wife is very different. Grusing is right...we don't know. LE doesn't know and the prosecutor's office doesn't know if he genuinely loved her.

<modsnip> Heck, he didn’t show concern for SD when he asked her to steal a package from his FORMER residence. And regardless of whose name the package had on it, she didn’t just lift it, she stole it.

I won’t argue this with you or anyone else. It’s the way I see it as a potential juror.

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

I was only discussing what Agent Grusing had to say about killers in relationships who loved their spouse/partner.

I totally agree with you. The prosecution doesn’t need to prove anything regarding loving or not loving; it’s totally impertinent, either way, to murder.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I totally agree with you. The prosecution doesn’t need to prove anything regarding loving or not loving; it’s totally impertinent, either way, to murder.

No it doesn’t matter. It just kind of sickens that BM claims he loved her.

 

[sk716]

Do you have a transcript of the hearing?

I can honestly say I do not.

I am working off of the Plunder court transcript videos.

It's from this one:

About half an hour in, I'm pretty sure Grusing is just winding Nielsen up over the Cellebrite reports in the cross over the chipmunk chase. You can skip ahead until Nielsen's cross. It's a really long exchange, but totally worth the view/listen. By this point, he has already told her a few times that they use a program to "read" the Cellebright reports.

Q (Nielsen): Well you testified that you can read Cellebrite reports, correct?
A (Grusing): I can but I don't

Q (Nielsen): But you can.
A (Grusing): I can't. You're teaching me how to do it. Yes.

Q (Nielsen): Well that's following the source path in Cellebrite reader which was produced in discovery,
A (Grusing): Correct, but that's not what we use.

Q (Nielsen): I understand. But you've testified now numerous times that you have experience reading Cellebrite reports, correct?
A (Grusing): Yes, I know what they are.

 

[sk716]

Do you have a link handy for the FBI interviews with Barry? (It seems it's double posting again)
Yes! JMHOO... PBBM

A slick guy like Barry coveted what Suzanne stood for. He needed her physical assets. Good, clean, All American, Christian, naturally beautiful, gorgeous daughters, money, status. Having Suzanne by his side, gave Barry authentication, almost immediately, in any setting. Get it? Men soak in energy from being with a beautiful lady who possesses a pleasant attitude.

Suzanne was beautiful to him, and as irreplaceable for Barry as a shiny black truck with triple seats or the BobCat's blades. And, Barry got ShoSho with the trade in. To Barry, Suzanne was a thing of beauty like a vehicle, no more no less.
The End.
.

http://www.[link removed]/court_documents/barry-morphew-redacted-arrest-affidavit/

Ctrl+F to bring up your browsers page search function.

 

[sk716]

I think attacking his character is a great idea. The man has none. He hasn’t shown love for his daughters either. Heck, he didn’t show concern for SD when he asked her to steal a package from his FORMER residence. And regardless of whose name the package had on it, she didn’t just lift it, she stole it.

I won’t argue this with you or anyone else. It’s the way I see it as a potential juror.

BBM. That's bringing a bazooka to a spitball fight.

 

[Seattle1]

I have not a doubt in my mind that they loved each other for some duration of their marriage. When and where each spouse fell out of love is not crystal clear. Barry proclaims he never stopped loving her. We know that Suzanne got serious on her end for divorce at some point before she started her affair and discussed the idea of divorce with trusted confidants. But we also know she accused Barry of having an affair when they were still in Indiana so the falling apart probably started at some point before they moved. It can take years for some couples to actually uncouple.

I think SM loved BM at one time but impossible to believe that BM loves anybody but himself -- any love for SM would be storge or pragma. In other words, he had a mutually beneficial relationship with SM-- one that should never be confused with love. BM killed SM when the benefits were threatened and/or gone. He killed the mother of his children. Nope, not a loving individual, ever. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

I think with both Watts and Morphew, it wasn’t really about pleasing their wives or taking care of them. It was more about the men making themselves look good. I can’t explain it and I would certainly hope my husband would step up and do all he could for me. I would do it for him. But how does a person go from carrying his sick wife around to murdering her? I would need a lot of psychological training to understand that. Watts was almost a lap dog for his wife until he found another woman to have sex with. I can’t figure it out. I’m glad I don’t have to.

Men like BM and Watts become pros at mimicking behavior others construe as "love." They've had a lifetime of practice. They marry because they lack the motivation to maintain the facade. Watts was a good example of "storge" where he actively participated in family activities and truly had family and friends fooled. Like BM, theirs was a mutually beneficial (i.e., physical relationship) relationship until it wasn't when Watts replaced his wife prior to murdering her. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

Barry Morphew Redacted Arrest Affidavit – Find Suzanne Morphew

Ctrl+F to bring up your browsers page search function.

Always appreciate it when you post gems like this! Thanks.

 

[Love Never Fails]

It doesn’t. Barry said it best. As long as he had sex, it was all good. That’s all Suzanne was for.

replying to Becky F

 

[MassGuy]

I can honestly say I do not.

I am working off of the Plunder court transcript videos.

It's from this one:

About half an hour in, I'm pretty sure Grusing is just winding Nielsen up over the Cellebrite reports in the cross over the chipmunk chase. You can skip ahead until Nielsen's cross. It's a really long exchange, but totally worth the view/listen. By this point, he has already told her a few times that they use a program to "read" the Cellebright reports.

Q (Nielsen): Well you testified that you can read Cellebrite reports, correct?
A (Grusing): I can but I don't

Q (Nielsen): But you can.
A (Grusing): I can't. You're teaching me how to do it. Yes.

Q (Nielsen): Well that's following the source path in Cellebrite reader which was produced in discovery,
A (Grusing): Correct, but that's not what we use.

Q (Nielsen): I understand. But you've testified now numerous times that you have experience reading Cellebrite reports, correct?
A (Grusing): Yes, I know what they are.

He had testified in countless cases prior to this, and I have no doubt he knew exactly what he was doing.

Truly a thing of beauty.

 

[mrjitty]

I think attacking his character is a great idea. The man has none. He hasn’t shown love for his daughters either. Heck, he didn’t show concern for SD when he asked her to steal a package from his FORMER residence. And regardless of whose name the package had on it, she didn’t just lift it, she stole it.

I won’t argue this with you or anyone else. It’s the way I see it as a potential juror.

It's a bit of a tricky area.

In general the law does not allow "similar fact evidence" or "propensity reasoning" at trial. The general idea is you are not allowed to try to paint the accused as the "kind of bad person who would do a crime like this". (There are exceptions which don't really apply in this case).

All that said, the prosecution will be trying to prove the relationship was bad (from SM's point of view) and that she was trying to leave BM. That goes to motive.

It will be the defence trying to convince the jury that BM could never have done such a thing. I have seen that approach work. When Pistorius was initially found not guilty of murder, I think the judge was convinced they had a normal loving relationship, so this must have been an accident.

I think in this case it is much harder for BM, because all the evidence is this was not a good relationship.

 

[Seattle1]

Just want to underscore this. Credit goes to @MassGuy and @MrsWatson.

Easy to imagine that being Suzanne's last thought, as her life ended -- how could you do this to me? I trusted you.

I imagine the last image of her alive, the one to which he wouldn't/couldn't give voice wasn't Suzanne with drunk eyes (drunk, no... tranqued, yes) but Suzanne eyes with the sad pain of betrayal. And fear for her babies.

JMO

Watts told investigators that his wife was looking at him as he choked the life out of her where he thought he saw forgiveness in her eyes as she gave up the fight! BM no doubt thinks the same -- that SM was somehow forgiving him for saving her. That's what goes through the minds of men like these watching their wives take their last breath-- thoughts of justification, not guilt or remorse. Whereas BM had much more time at freedom after murdering SM (compared to Watts), I believe he felt inconvenienced by SM's demise but never remorseful. MOO

 

[MassGuy]

It's a bit of a tricky area.

In general the law does not allow "similar fact evidence" or "propensity reasoning" at trial. The general idea is you are not allowed to try to paint the accused as the "kind of bad person who would do a crime like this". (There are exceptions which don't really apply in this case).

All that said, the prosecution will be trying to prove the relationship was bad (from SM's point of view) and that she was trying to leave BM. That goes to motive.

It will be the defence trying to convince the jury that BM could never have done such a thing. I have seen that approach work. When Pistorius was initially found not guilty of murder, I think the judge was convinced they had a normal loving relationship, so this must have been an accident.

I think in this case it is much harder for BM, because all the evidence is this was not a good relationship.

I mean, there's irrefutable proof that the marriage was deteriorating.

Despite Barry using the word "perfect" over and over, there are recordings, text messages, that grievance list, deleted texts, and witness accounts.

The prosecution doesn't merely have an edge in this regard, they are dominating from the start.

Just one of many lies from Barry, but still very important.

 

[Seattle1]

It will be the defence trying to convince the jury that BM could never have done such a thing. I have seen that approach work. When Pistorius was initially found not guilty of murder, I think the judge was convinced they had a normal loving relationship, so this must have been an accident.

^^rsbm
I disagree. I think Judge Thokozile Masipa considered the facts where prudent behavior in SA at the sound of a window or door opening is that your life is in danger and where by shooting through the door, Pistorius acted to save himself from being killed by an intruder and not guilty of murder but culpable homicide. MOO

 

[Love Never Fails]

I noticed in the AA that Macy or Mallory (Name redacted) told the officer she last spoke with her mother the night of May 9.
Yet LE puts her time of death (or last sign of life) around the 2 PM hour.
How did they reconcile that with the daughter speaking to her Saturday night?

 

[FromGermany1]

It doesn’t. Barry said it best. As long as he had sex, it was all good. That’s all Suzanne was for.

replying to Becky F

What did he do, when his wife wasn't available accurate to the minute? I think, I don't want to know.

 

[Megnut]

I noticed in the AA that Macy or Mallory (Name redacted) told the officer she last spoke with her mother the night of May 9.
Yet LE puts her time of death (or last sign of life) around the 2 PM hour.
How did they reconcile that with the daughter speaking to her Saturday night?

I doubt that call happened....

But.... I can almost see Barry forcing Suzanne, still partially sedated, to make a call to apologize for what she'd done.

Please I hope that never happened.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

What did he do, when his wife wasn't available accurate to the minute? I think, I don't want to know.

That's when he checked on his dear prolly.

JMO

 

[Love Never Fails]

I noticed in the AA that Macy or Mallory (Name redacted) told the officer she last spoke with her mother the night of May 9.
Yet LE puts her time of death (or last sign of life) around the 2 PM hour.
How did they reconcile that with the daughter speaking to her Saturday night?

I doubt that call happened....

But.... I can almost see Barry forcing Suzanne, still partially sedated, to make a call to apologize for what she'd done.

Please I hope that never happened.

JMO

I have to go back and read it but I understood the daughter made the call and not Suzanne. LE has the cell records and the daughters will be witnesses. I just wondered if the call had been brought up here. I haven’t seen it discussed. Made me wonder about the time of death. That’s all.