Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #90

[MassGuy]

It's why his ongoing gaslighting is so abusive

Those he can't fool, he runs over.

Those he can fool, I feel bad for.

 

[mrjitty]

Here's another example of E & N doing what they do best: accuse prosecutors of withholding evidence and request sanctions for misconduct. And also get their well-heeled client acquitted of first-degree murder!

Murder trial for Denver architect Micah Kimball debates how Michelle Jacobson died

That case looks wild

 

[Bootsie4]

Welcome Bootsie.
Great first post.
Hope to hear more from you.

Thanks TMAR

 

[Lyanna]

That excuse might work except for the fact he told the investigators that the reason he did it was because (paraphrasing) everyone else cheats.

The problem that Barry creates for himself is that he goes out of his way to trash others when he’s trying to explain his own doings. Like when he said about the Senate hearings that he knew they were all lying because they said, “I can’t recall.” He then goes on to answer, “I can’t recall,” to a good portion of the agents’ questions.

He’s not content to simply explain himself. He likes to tear someone else down while a doing so. Good old Barry seems to think the rules apply to everyone but himself.

Another example
Barry said guilty people shift the blame onto others so the guilty person isn't suspected, and proceeded to name CBD fella, Suzanne's sister, Suzanne's brother. Not once acknowledging he was doing the same thing

 

[Murphy1950]

As far as water, it would not be her usual bike ride that she drives too. It could be a quick afternoon ride while everyone was gone. It was not too far from her house.

Quick afternoon ride, quick being a relative word. Suzanne was fairly new to mountain biking. Suzanne needed to be back home that afternoon and get ready for a significant life time event, the marriage of her best friend’s daughter, a young lady whom she had known since childhood. Suzanne was participating in her wedding via zoom. Doesn’t seem the best time to test one’s stamina and endurance on a new trail with a crazy climb, no water, no phone and no sunglasses.

When authorities reached the Morphew home that day, Miles Harvey, a boyfriend of one of the Morphew daughters, was walking out of the garage. He told deputies that the Morphew daughters were not at the home, and he had searched for Suzanne there, but came up empty. Harvey said she had never gone up the trail where her bike was found because it was a “crazy climb” with a large elevation gain.

 

[DizzyB]

As far as water, it would not be her usual bike ride that she drives too. It could be a quick afternoon ride while everyone was gone. It was not too far from her house.

Not to mention that it was a “crazy climb” and way above Suzanne’s skill level, according to someone close to the family.

 

[DizzyB]

Quick afternoon ride, quick being a relative word. Suzanne was fairly new to mountain biking. Suzanne needed to be back home that afternoon and get ready for a significant life time event, the marriage of her best friend’s daughter, a young lady whom she had known since childhood. Suzanne was participating in her wedding via zoom. Doesn’t seem the best time to test one’s stamina and endurance on a new trail with a crazy climb, no water, no phone and no sunglasses.

When authorities reached the Morphew home that day, Miles Harvey, a boyfriend of one of the Morphew daughters, was walking out of the garage. He told deputies that the Morphew daughters were not at the home, and he had searched for Suzanne there, but came up empty. Harvey said she had never gone up the trail where her bike was found because it was a “crazy climb” with a large elevation gain.

Get out of my head lol!

 

[CGray123]

There may be people who don't know they can't vote as a proxy for someone else, but they are most likely people who have never had to witness the mark of a person who was unable to sign.

Barry falsely attested that he witnessed his wife's signature, which was not present on the document. That's why he's in trouble. He sent it in not knowing how throughly signatures are checked in Colorado.

When we lived in Colorado, my husband mindlessly printed his signature on a ballot after years of signing in his distinctive, flowing cursive. He got a cure letter and a do-over, and he completed his vote. They really do check, Barry. Duh.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I think BM attracts friends similar to himself where taking down elk for his own financial gain is acceptable. People that $$$ can buy their silence-- even after learning they were used.

It's amazing thinking how many people BM may have "used " -- beginning with the unsuspecting Ritters that welcomed the Morphews and hosted the extended family and friends of family during the initial searches for SM. MOO

Oh I agree except that IF there is another person he used to help dispose of his wife, we are talking about being an accomplice to murder. That’s different from illegal dumping of a carcass. Lets hope he doesn’t have a friend like that.

 

[Seattle1]

I think it is important to note also that according to Lauren Scharf's recap from court yesterday he signed on the witness/guardian line. I do believe when it does come to trial that it will be argued that he did not know he could not do that when in fact the form has a witness/guardian line for signature. The line where Suzanne would sign was blank. As I said, I personally have friends who did not know you could not vote as a guardian for someone else so it is entirely plausible that Barry didn't know what he was doing was against the law. I agree with the judge in that the short statement prosecution wanted to introduce his on the record comment about voting for XYZ into trial as evidence of his knowledge that she was deceased was not supported. He signed it as a guardian...the presumption being the person was alive but unable to sign.

^^bbm

Arrest Affidavit for Voter Fraud/Forgery

https://www.fox21news.com/wp-conten...for-Arrest-Warrant.pdf?ipid=promo-link-block1

I'm confused. What is the status of a ballot without the voter's signature? If BM didn't forge Suzanne's signature, did he commit a crime under the laws cited? If anyone understands this better, please help me to. TIA.

From last night's recap by LS, I also recall LS using the word "guardian" in describing the defense's argument against BM's Forgery of a public record, and Election mail ballot offense charges. If the defense used the term guardian, I believe they intentionally or not, added to the confusion.

To be clear, there is no such thing as a guardian signing for the voter in Colorado. In fact, the word guardian is completely absent from the only signature lines on the Colorado ballot. The ballot further makes it clear that Power of Attorney is not accepted-- making the message clear to BM who is experienced in acting as both SM's guardian and power of attorney.

Beneath the Self Affirmation on the ballot, the following signature lines are included as follows:

X__________________________
Voter's Signature Required -
Power of Attorney will not be accepted.

___________________________________
Witness's Legal Name -: If voter is unable to sign,
he or she must make a mark and witness must provide a full
legal name on the line above.

Please see the New9 video linked below for specific information about the charges including a sample ballot from Chaffee County.

Barry Morphew accused of voting for missing wife Suzanne Morphew | 9news.com

 

[genuineusa77]

Quick afternoon ride, quick being a relative word. Suzanne was fairly new to mountain biking. Suzanne needed to be back home that afternoon and get ready for a significant life time event, the marriage of her best friend’s daughter, a young lady whom she had known since childhood. Suzanne was participating in her wedding via zoom. Doesn’t seem the best time to test one’s stamina and endurance on a new trail with a crazy climb, no water, no phone and no sunglasses.

When authorities reached the Morphew home that day, Miles Harvey, a boyfriend of one of the Morphew daughters, was walking out of the garage. He told deputies that the Morphew daughters were not at the home, and he had searched for Suzanne there, but came up empty. Harvey said she had never gone up the trail where her bike was found because it was a “crazy climb” with a large elevation gain.

OK, I'm putting that to bed, Thanks!

 

[O.Incandenza]

MOO to review.


There is no identity for the RR dash DNA contributor which is somehow a "limited sample" (usually means trace) or for the "partial match" which means the relative identified by a CODIS search.

The contrubtor is not in CODIS but a relative of the RR dash contributor is, and that insividual is the "partial match."

A relative who is a criminal, is unidentified but whose DNA is in rhe CODIS database.

MOO Both contributor and the relative are not identified. They are not the same person.
****
Please let me know if the identity of the RR dash contributor is known.

It's sort of impossible to know for sure based on what we've heard publicly. But my interpretation is slightly different from yours:

I think they have a limited sample from the unknown contributor on the dashboard. That means they can't fully match it to anyone. So the 'partial match' results from CODIS don't necessarily indicate a relative of the contributor, rather they indicate someone who can't be excluded as the contributor themselves. So the sex offender in Arizona could be the source of the DNA, but so could a bunch of other people. How large that 'bunch of other people' is, I have no idea, and that seems like important information.

If the DNA allowed them to conclusively rule out the Arizona sex offender, it seems like the prosecution would have stated that clearly by now.

Of course, all of this assumes that random touch DNA on the dashboard is relevant to what happened to Suzanne, which seems very unlikely to me. But the defense is obviously going to act like it is, so hopefully the prosecution will do a better job of explaining how large the potential match pool is once they get to trial.

 

[Derph]

Oh I agree except that IF there is another person he used to help dispose of his wife, we are talking about being an accomplice to murder. That’s different from illegal dumping of a carcass. Lets hope he doesn’t have a friend like that.

There are a couple of things that lead me to the possibility of an accomplice.

1- The 25 minutes or so when bM's truck moved in the driveway and the doors registered as being closed. What was he doing in the truck for all that time? Could he have met with someone in the truck? The doors opened and closed a lot of times. Another person there could help account for the high number of openings and closings.

2- SM's phone pinging at 4 something in the morning ( sorry can't remember the exact time ) 11 miles away from PP. Was she and her phone being moved away at that time while bM was home or putzing around on his drive to pitch the bike and helmet.

3- And this is my biggest concern about an accomplice is his time in the Men's Warehouse parking lot. He spent a lot of time there in his truck. Did he meet someone there? Talk on another phone to someone during that time? The man doesn't stay still for very long, ever! So why and what was he doing during that time in that parking lot. It wasn't cleaning his truck as it was a mess still by the time he drove back home where he met police.

Those are 3 things that make me question a possible accomplice. It's not a lot but it is an anomaly out of everything we have from that day. Those things have ALWAYS stood out for me since reading the timeline and AA for some reason.

 

[Cassady]

It's sort of impossible to know for sure based on what we've heard publicly. But my interpretation is slightly different from yours:

I think they have a limited sample from the unknown contributor on the dashboard. That means they can't fully match it to anyone. So the 'partial match' results from CODIS don't necessarily indicate a relative of the contributor, rather they indicate someone who can't be excluded as the contributor themselves. So the sex offender in Arizona could be the source of the DNA, but so could a bunch of other people. How large that 'bunch of other people' is, I have no idea, and that seems like important information.

If the DNA allowed them to conclusively rule out the Arizona sex offender, it seems like the prosecution would have stated that clearly by now.

Of course, all of this assumes that random touch DNA on the dashboard is relevant to what happened to Suzanne, which seems very unlikely to me. But the defense is obviously going to act like it is, so hopefully the prosecution will do a better job of explaining how large the potential match pool is once they get to trial.

Regarding the DNA:

Have any of the witnesses this week or at the prelim testified that the DNA found in various locations was irrelevant or not important to look at in the investigation?

All the recaps I have read make it sound like this evidence was important to investigators, at least as far as the witnesses that have actually testified about the DNA up to this point?

These were primarily "state" witnesses and I cannot find where any of them are diregarding the DNA evidence....even the main CBI investigator who now has a Brady Letter in his jacket was supposedly following up on the possible AZ matches!

Alot of internet DNA "experts" want to disregard this possible evidence, but I am looking for a witness who has testified that the potential DNA evidence is meaningless?

 

[DizzyB]

It's sort of impossible to know for sure based on what we've heard publicly. But my interpretation is slightly different from yours:

I think they have a limited sample from the unknown contributor on the dashboard. That means they can't fully match it to anyone. So the 'partial match' results from CODIS don't necessarily indicate a relative of the contributor, rather they indicate someone who can't be excluded as the contributor themselves. So the sex offender in Arizona could be the source of the DNA, but so could a bunch of other people. How large that 'bunch of other people' is, I have no idea, and that seems like important information.

If the DNA allowed them to conclusively rule out the Arizona sex offender, it seems like the prosecution would have stated that clearly by now.

Of course, all of this assumes that random touch DNA on the dashboard is relevant to what happened to Suzanne, which seems very unlikely to me. But the defense is obviously going to act like it is, so hopefully the prosecution will do a better job of explaining how large the potential match pool is once they get to trial.

Speaking of Suzanne’s Range Rover, do we know what type of telematics are available? Are door events recorded? Did Suzanne’s vehicle move at all on Saturday? There has to be data that provide pieces to this puzzle. I’ll take anything that contradicts what Barry told LE.

 

[mom2chloe]

True but doesn't mean we aren't white knuckled driving LOL. I've once in a great while almost needed someone to peel my fingers off the steering wheel and I drive 4wd vehicles with Hakkapeliita tires in the winter. I never drive my H's truck in the winter..those are the worst even with 4WD.

You’re much braver than me! I refuse to drive anymore on snow and would never attempt ice. Hubby has 4 wheel drive as does son but still no use on ice. I don’t know what this Monarch Pass is like but I’m certain no one would even want me as a passenger on that lol

 

[MassGuy]

Speaking of Suzanne’s Range Rover, do we know what type of telematics are available? Are door events recorded? Did Suzanne’s vehicle move at all on Saturday? There has to be data that provide pieces to this puzzle. I’ll take anything that contradicts what Barry told LE.

Both Range rovers were towed and processed. Suzanne's was the only model that could potentially contain that data.

The analysis was not completed by the time the AA was finalized, and I don't recall if this came up in the prelim. If Barry used one of those vehicles, I'd bet he would have taken the older model one, so I'm not optimistic.

 

[Boxer]

It's sort of impossible to know for sure based on what we've heard publicly. But my interpretation is slightly different from yours:

I think they have a limited sample from the unknown contributor on the dashboard. That means they can't fully match it to anyone. So the 'partial match' results from CODIS don't necessarily indicate a relative of the contributor, rather they indicate someone who can't be excluded as the contributor themselves. So the sex offender in Arizona could be the source of the DNA, but so could a bunch of other people. How large that 'bunch of other people' is, I have no idea, and that seems like important information.

If the DNA allowed them to conclusively rule out the Arizona sex offender, it seems like the prosecution would have stated that clearly by now.

Of course, all of this assumes that random touch DNA on the dashboard is relevant to what happened to Suzanne, which seems very unlikely to me. But the defense is obviously going to act like it is, so hopefully the prosecution will do a better job of explaining how large the potential match pool is once they get to trial.

A limited DNA sample, mixed with the two daughters DNA.

Such a limited sample, and mixed sample may be due to being a secondary transfer from one of the daughters hands, for example from the daughter touching a store door before entering the RR.

MOO there is a good possibilty the male contributor of the dash DNA was never near the RR.


Framed By Your Own Cells: How DNA Evidence Imprisons The Innocent

 

[Alwayshere]

True but doesn't mean we aren't white knuckled driving LOL. I've once in a great while almost needed someone to peel my fingers off the steering wheel and I drive 4wd vehicles with Hakkapeliita tires in the winter. I never drive my H's truck in the winter..those are the worst even with 4WD.

Momofthreeboys, I’m so sorry that has happened to you. We have always relied on critical thinking skills and channel 9 news to guide us through years of sporting events, family visits, in-state vacations, and even work. There is rarely a shutdown here as Colorado has ever-changing weather and we are all expected to adapt or stay home.

 

[Boxer]

Both Range rovers were towed and processed. Suzanne's was the only model that could potentially contain that data.

The analysis was not completed by the time the AA was finalized, and I don't recall if this came up in the prelim. If Barry used one of those vehicles, I'd bet he would have taken the older model one, so I'm not optimistic.
View attachment 331460 View attachment 331461

True. Hope they thoroughly searched all the vehicles for trace evidence.

But I do think Barry is correct that he could hide a body.
Who would boast such a thing?
MOO someone thinking about but not quite committed to killing someone yet.
Once committed I doubt they would slip like that.