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

[Derph]

Reading thru the AA summary from here": https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...cated-stories-surrounding-wifes-disappearance

" In a March 1 interview, Barry Morphew asked investigators for immunity and again claimed there was no evidence and said Suzanne Morphew had “made him a monster and things ‘just blew up.’” When asked why he wanted immunity, he told investigators, “I think in case somebody falsely convicts me or something.”

The 1st time I read that I didn't think it was a big a deal. I read it and thought it may have been tied into the polygraph test. I thought that he was asking for immunity from things like poaching, an affair, running a red light, threatening somebody or other low level crimes that a homicide detective wouldn't be too concerned about. The type of questions you might be asked about to get a reading or baseline for a polygraph. That might also explain his reluctance to take it and why he said he wouldn't pass it. I gave bM the benefit of the doubt on this one as a polygraph isn't admissible in court and let's face it, who hasn't lied about something in their life that they don't want to be made public.

But now I see the immunity he wants concerns the murder outright. The choice of words here is important. He's not saying ACCUSE, he's saying CONVICT. Big difference! That is a pretty specific statement. It has a finality to it. Someone could accuse you of anything but without evidence or proof it's a hollow word. Convict is way different. If someone falsely convicts you that means all arguments have already been made. Things are stacked against you, judgement has been handed down. The action is over, final. I find that use of the word 'convicts' odd and it raises a red flag. Who talks like that?

Why would that person's word cause police to take their word over the facts against barry when there is NO EVIDENCE? WHO IS HE AFRAID OF? Could that mean that someone else knows something that we don't? I find that whole exchange odd. I REALLY want to see those interview tapes and watch his body language.

Maybe I'm reading to much into it but words are important. Interrogators pick up on statements like that. It could mean nothing but it also could mean something. I'd like to see the conversation before and after that statement.

 

[sk716]

Personally, if IE approached me and asked if I feared BM, I think I'd also say no just to avoid one of her circular arguments-- which also make me weary!

"I want to go back to ..."

What you didn't get it the first three times?!

 

[sk716]

Lauren’s 5:00 live shot

‘It has been a hard and confusing time’: Barry Morphew’s daughters plead for court to allow their father to visit | FOX21 News Colorado


CHAFFEE COUNTY, Colo. — For the first time since their father, Barry Morphew, was arrested for the disappearance and murder of their mother, Suzanne, the couples’ two daughters addressed the court.

“It would be really such a blessing for our dad to be able to be with us,” Mallory Morphew said in a Chaffee County courtroom on Tuesday. “Because of our work schedule and driving over the pass in the winter.”

The Morphew girls live in Gunnison and, per the terms of their father’s bond, he’s had to stay within the bounds of Chaffee County.

Judge Ramsey Lama agreed to that request, modifying the bond to allow Morphew to travel to Gunnison – during daylight hours only. His attorney noted Morphew is being tracked by a GPS monitoring system – and that there have been no issues with that system thus far.

However, the judge’s decision was not uncontested. Suzanne Morphew’s family wrote a letter to the judge stating they do not agree with a bond modification.

Bold Swap By Me.

This is a stupid argument. The girls are afraid to drive the pass in winter. We were on COVID lockdown for months. There are still people who can't risk seeing immuno-compromised loved ones two years later and the girls can't wait until the plows run to see their poor daddy.

This is the first step to a longer plan.

MOO

 

[Kingsley]

Weak tranquilizer argument and no gun that was operational that could have fired the kind of tranq darts he had. That got confirmed in the 48 hours piece by the man who said "no" to firing from a different 22 and no signs of struggle other than a door jamb which can't be shown occurred May 9 or 10 to suggest something manual was done. This absolutely bothers me the most considering no evidence of death in or near the house. I have questions about why LE didn't find the needle sheath in the first search...what else did they miss the first go round? The FBI allowing Barry to pass them the illegal .22 via the window of his vehicle burns me. No wonder he thought they were his friends. An FBI Agent may not realize a clothes dryer has a lint trap unless they've been assigned laundry duty at some point in their life. However, the dart's sheath was found in the trap. I suspect Suzanne's DNA was planted onto the sheath by her killer.
.

sbm
I cannot currently access the AA linked to from page 1 of the thread, I get an error.
Maybe someone has a better memory than me: wasn't the cap in the drum not the trap? I'm not sure it matters that much but I would like to know definitively.
It may have been from the hearing when the first police officer said he didn't see anything but it was found later (?) I found some of the argument in old threads but not an authoritative answer.

 

[MassGuy]

sbm
I cannot currently access the AA linked to from page 1 of the thread, I get an error.
Maybe someone has a better memory than me: wasn't the cap in the drum not the trap? I'm not sure it matters that much but I would like to know definitively.
It may have been from the hearing when the first police officer said he didn't see anything but it was found later (?) I found some of the argument in old threads but not an authoritative answer.

The AA does in fact say "drum," on page 10.


Here's a working link. https://www.courts.state.co.us/user.../21CR78/21cr78 Morphew Redacted Affidavit.pdf

 

[sk716]

Listen to this carefully, and you will understand that it is the defense, not the prosecution, that is unprepared. IE took the extraordinary step of subpoenaing opposing counsel, who has had a different full time job since he went to work for the 10th JD, and who understandably has not paid attention to this case since. With no evidence at all, IE attempted unsuccessfully to insinuate through her questions that he had massively violated all ethical and professional principles by concealing exculpatory evidence. Her questions wandered all over the place (see fishing expedition) to the extent that the judge had to remind her to get to the point. If she had actual evidence, she would have been prepared to refresh Lindsey's recollection by putting a relevant exhibit under his nose and asking him if his memory is restored. She didn't have any killer cross examination documents to prove misconduct on Lindsey's part. It was an extraordinarily sleazy tactic that wasted everyone's time. But the chaos that resulted from her lack of preparation apparently convinced some naive people that the prosecution was not prepared. Wrong. They said all they could say: we gave them every discoverable document.

There was one issue that was debated and decided. The defense wanted drafts of the AA, and the DA argued they were privileged work product. The judge ordered that these be turned over, but this issue anything but evidence the prosecution was unprepared or engaged in misconduct. I don't know where these perceptions come from. They're wrong.

Quoting for emphasis.

Their client is indefensible. The only strategy they can come up with is to attack investigators, prosecutors, and the victim. And I expect to see attacks on witnesses on the stand. I really hope Stanley's team is prepping SO for what's coming. I'm expecting something along the lines of I-guess-you-didn't-know-your-BEST-friend-as-well-as-you-thought-you-did as they've already spit-balled it during the PH.

They can't say Barry wasn't there. He was.
They can't say he has an alibi. It's ridiculous. Chipmunks!
They can't say he's a good man who would never do this. So many people said Barry's an aggressive bully, even his friends. His friends told LE they thought Barry capable of doing it!

They can't answer for Barry's behavior, so they attack evidence of a kind that is new to the public and present a scientifically impossible DNA match as exculpatory.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Reading thru the AA summary from here": https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...cated-stories-surrounding-wifes-disappearance

" In a March 1 interview, Barry Morphew asked investigators for immunity and again claimed there was no evidence and said Suzanne Morphew had “made him a monster and things ‘just blew up.’” When asked why he wanted immunity, he told investigators, “I think in case somebody falsely convicts me or something.”

The 1st time I read that I didn't think it was a big a deal. I read it and thought it may have been tied into the polygraph test. I thought that he was asking for immunity from things like poaching, an affair, running a red light, threatening somebody or other low level crimes that a homicide detective wouldn't be too concerned about. The type of questions you might be asked about to get a reading or baseline for a polygraph. That might also explain his reluctance to take it and why he said he wouldn't pass it. I gave bM the benefit of the doubt on this one as a polygraph isn't admissible in court and let's face it, who hasn't lied about something in their life that they don't want to be made public.

But now I see the immunity he wants concerns the murder outright. The choice of words here is important. He's not saying ACCUSE, he's saying CONVICT. Big difference! That is a pretty specific statement. It has a finality to it. Someone could accuse you of anything but without evidence or proof it's a hollow word. Convict is way different. If someone falsely convicts you that means all arguments have already been made. Things are stacked against you, judgement has been handed down. The action is over, final. I find that use of the word 'convicts' odd and it raises a red flag. Who talks like that?

Why would that person's word cause police to take their word over the facts against barry when there is NO EVIDENCE? WHO IS HE AFRAID OF? Could that mean that someone else knows something that we don't? I find that whole exchange odd. I REALLY want to see those interview tapes and watch his body language.

Maybe I'm reading to much into it but words are important. Interrogators pick up on statements like that. It could mean nothing but it also could mean something. I'd like to see the conversation before and after that statement.

Because there is someone else that knows stuff I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist which I abhore, but I did finally answer why I think he did not act alone. I did forget to add this to the list of things that point me that way and this also range little bells in my head when the info was released.

 

[sk716]

Months ago I posted a legal analysis on the PH by an attorney host who stated that IE is known by her peers as "hurricane Iris." I think of hurricanes as a source of powerful wind where things swirl around for a bit before settling down. And we all know that storms can be fun to watch! I've mostly seen Category 1 -- some messy, interruptive winds here. MOO

I would think it was all of the looping back around to the same questions. Just spinning in circles and tossing out random projectiles.

 

[sk716]

Lol.

Lauren says that Mr. Ritter said that during the early days, there were group searches led by Barry. He'd give a speech prior to the searches, and it bothered Ritter that the speech was always the same every single day.

"This is how we met. She's the love of my life. I don't know what I'll do without her."

He was bothered by Barry's lack of emotion.

Member of defense named Rachel basically harassed him. She pretended to be his friend. He wanted prosecution to be there at the same time. The defense wouldn't respond to that request.

Ritters were very uncomfortable when Barry moved back into the neighborhood. They installed a security system. He repeated his fears to multiple law enforcement people.

He read the AA over several days, and he believed Barry was responsible after reading it.

I'm still behind. Did LS talk to the Ritter's or is she reporting on statements from court? I can't see them doing an interview, but I could see them answering the occasional question via written statement or unrecorded on the record.

 

[MassGuy]

I'm still behind. Did LS talk to the Ritter's or is she reporting on statements from court? I can't see them doing an interview, but I could see them answering the occasional question via written statement or unrecorded on the record.

This came from court testimony during the motions hearing.

 

[genuineusa77]

No way to know what time she "went missing" or what she was wearing. Police have the last image of herself she took with a phone (allegedly in a bathing suit) and what Barry said she was wearing when he last reported....but there is that large gap of time when investigators don't have any concrete information that would without doubt tell us "what she was wearing when she disappeared" of even just what time she disappeared. We also don't have any idea of investigators asked MM2...who was living at home if "she" noticed anything missing form her mom's wardrobe. It seems like something logical investigators would have asked...but this case....has investigation gaps that we aren't privvy to yet. If they knew a brown towel was missing...then I have to assume they were thorough about anything else being missing - we heard about the phone, charger and journal. I don't recall where the missing brown towel was documented, but it's mentioned by posters quite abit. And we know the bike and helmet were missing. It is not clear if the bathing suit in the closest matched the one she was sunning in that afternoon or if it can even be confirmed...it's not obvious in the last photo they released since it was pretty much just her face.

Or if she did went biking on Sunday in her biking outfit. You never know.

 

[Kingsley]

The AA does in fact say "drum," on page 10.
View attachment 331524

Here's a working link. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/21cr78 Morphew Redacted Affidavit.pdf

Thanks!
The link also works for me.

 

[sk716]

View attachment 331359

I see her purse leaning toward the driver's seat. Seems natural.
Sunglasses on the passenger's seat. Seems natural.
Help me see the open wallet.

Is that a bag of snack food in the passenger's seat?
Handiwipes on the floorboard?
Bottle of spa chemicals on the floorboard?
That's all I can identify.

How did all of the stuff get into the passenger seat? Did police put it there or was Barry looking for something?

We know, from last weeks discussion of the timeline that on Friday Suzanne met Barry at Tailwinds, went to the store, then to Moonlight Pizza where she texted the girls a pic of Barry waiting. She dropped him back at Tailwinds and went home.

Suzanne doesn't leave the house again. Barry isn't going to set on all of that stuff. Not sure if he's a shove it in the floor type or patient while she moves it to the back seat. But either way, her Camelbak, snack, purse, and sunglasses are on the passenger seat in this pic. It's Peoples Exhibit 64, but is this the first photo or after CCSO started their search? Going to link to the big pic again: http://www.[link removed]/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/morphew-19.jpg

 

[sk716]

I agree, my front seat looks like this until I have passengers. What has me curious is why the seat would look like this if Barry was in the car the previous evening eating pizza. If I had a passenger eating pizza, my purse and miscellaneous stuff (not sunglasses) would have found its way to the back seat where it would remain until the next time I drove. Did Suzanne go somewhere after they picked up pizza and move those items back to the passenger seat or did they not eat pizza in the car as Barry tried indicating?

Others have mentioned being able to make out wallet contents but I cannot make those out either. If purse contents are spilled out, is this an additional act of staging?

IMO

The CCSO opened the purse, laid it out on paper and photographed it. I think we saw that pic in the trailer for the 48 hours special.

There does seem to be a piece of mail on top of the stuff in the seat. I wonder if that's what some think are wallet contents?

 

[Cindizzi]

That's a very good question! I would find it difficult to believe that Suzanne wasn't taking some kind of Rx after chemo, even if she had gotten the all clear on the cancer. It's not like you get the all clear and your body is instantly 100% recovered from everything it's been through. She may have been taking an antibiotic or another Rx drug to boost her immune system, esp with Covid going strong at the time.

MOO/IME

From Day 3 of the Prelim ( August 23 ) :


https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1429863781581086726?s=21
Now speaking about prescription drugs found in the #Morphew home and Walmart surveillance on May 6 at 12:30 p.m. of Suzanne picking up a white paper bag at the pharmacy but none found in the home for that date.

 

[MrsWatson]

From Day 3 of the Prelim ( August 23 ) :


https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1429863781581086726?s=21
Now speaking about prescription drugs found in the #Morphew home and Walmart surveillance on May 6 at 12:30 p.m. of Suzanne picking up a white paper bag at the pharmacy but none found in the home for that date.

Thanks for that! I had forgotten all about this!

Interesting.

 

[Skigh]

How did all of the stuff get into the passenger seat? Did police put it there or was Barry looking for something?

We know, from last weeks discussion of the timeline that on Friday Suzanne met Barry at Tailwinds, went to the store, then to Moonlight Pizza where she texted the girls a pic of Barry waiting. She dropped him back at Tailwinds and went home.

Suzanne doesn't leave the house again. Barry isn't going to set on all of that stuff. Not sure if he's a shove it in the floor type or patient while she moves it to the back seat. But either way, her Camelbak, snack, purse, and sunglasses are on the passenger seat in this pic. It's Peoples Exhibit 64, but is this the first photo or after CCSO started their search? Going to link to the big pic again: http://www.[link removed]/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/morphew-19.jpg

I might be wrong, but I have built up the impression that Suzanne was very neat,tidy and organised ,so do wonder if she would have left a jumble of things on the passenger seat of her car after parking it in the garage.

 

[Cindizzi]

Thanks for that! I had forgotten all about this!

Interesting.

Also, a video on his phone from March of one of her RX bottles!

 

[Kingsley]

Reading thru the AA summary from here": https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...cated-stories-surrounding-wifes-disappearance

" In a March 1 interview, Barry Morphew asked investigators for immunity and again claimed there was no evidence and said Suzanne Morphew had “made him a monster and things ‘just blew up.’” When asked why he wanted immunity, he told investigators, “I think in case somebody falsely convicts me or something.”

The 1st time I read that I didn't think it was a big a deal. I read it and thought it may have been tied into the polygraph test. I thought that he was asking for immunity from things like poaching, an affair, running a red light, threatening somebody or other low level crimes that a homicide detective wouldn't be too concerned about. The type of questions you might be asked about to get a reading or baseline for a polygraph. That might also explain his reluctance to take it and why he said he wouldn't pass it. I gave bM the benefit of the doubt on this one as a polygraph isn't admissible in court and let's face it, who hasn't lied about something in their life that they don't want to be made public.

But now I see the immunity he wants concerns the murder outright. The choice of words here is important. He's not saying ACCUSE, he's saying CONVICT. Big difference! That is a pretty specific statement. It has a finality to it. Someone could accuse you of anything but without evidence or proof it's a hollow word. Convict is way different. If someone falsely convicts you that means all arguments have already been made. Things are stacked against you, judgement has been handed down. The action is over, final. I find that use of the word 'convicts' odd and it raises a red flag. Who talks like that?

Why would that person's word cause police to take their word over the facts against barry when there is NO EVIDENCE? WHO IS HE AFRAID OF? Could that mean that someone else knows something that we don't? I find that whole exchange odd. I REALLY want to see those interview tapes and watch his body language.

Maybe I'm reading to much into it but words are important. Interrogators pick up on statements like that. It could mean nothing but it also could mean something. I'd like to see the conversation before and after that statement.

I also found Grusing's response to the immunity request to be telling: You won't be falsely convicted. bbm.

 

[sk716]

I think many people would be surprised at how many people vote on behalf of other people....totally thinking it is OK because said person is out of the country, in the hospital, in a nursing home, incapacitated in some way. I had this discussion with a group of friends when this came up and a couple of them had indeed voted for family members and had no idea they couldn't do so. I think this is why in most cases that actually make it to the court system the punishment is fairly innocuous. Many people even "smart people" do not understand the limitations unless they have been actively involved in some way as a volunteer or in a career with the voting process. I do not for a second think he "thought" people would think she was alive. He probably thought he could do it with his guardianship...and it's not related to the murder trial so will be dealt with legally at some point no doubt.

As I live in Arkansas, I haven't seen a Colorado mail in ballot. However, the paper ballots do in fact clearly state it's not okay to vote for someone else.

Found this sample ballot from Kiowa County, CO.

Kiowa County 2020 Primary Election Sample Ballots | Kiowa County Press - Eads, Colorado, Newspaper

Read under WARNING.

It's illegal, it's on the ballots, there is no excuse.