Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #94

[DellaC]

BM says he first spotted the elk as he approached Hwy 50 from CR 225. He said when he got up to the intersection he let them cross. He said there was one big bull he wanted to see better. That is why he turned left.
The elk crossed and went up the old washed out road. I’m attaching several shots from Google maps that, I think, identify the road he is referring to. It is about .105 miles from where BM was sitting at that intersection. Question: could he see them from that distance in the complete early morning darkness? I don’t think so.

My bil is a park ranger in PA. For his job he use to carry a spotlight in his car. He never used it for hunting as it was illegal, but I remember him using it to show me a herd of deer out in a farmer's field. I believe it is illegal in Colorado to use a light or night vision equipment for hunting. But Barry was not hunting, just observing, or so he says. And he doesn't seem to be overly concerned about following the law. He could have been tracking the elk with either a light or goggles. I wonder what LE found in his truck.

Also, per Colorado hunting regulations, you can only hunt for elk in season (Sept/Oct/Nov) "one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset."* This is supposed to give you enough light to see the animal and enough light to retrieve the animal. Just as an aside, while animals sometimes drop right where they are shot, some animals will run after being shot, even if it's a "good shot", and you will have to track them. According to wunderground.com, civil twilight (sun is 6 degrees below horizon, but there is still enough light to see) in Gunnison was 5:32 AM on May 10, 2020.
*https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/RulesRegs/Brochure/BigGame/biggame.pdf

 

[MassGuy]

True at that time of night/early AM on 50 he probably could have made a U-Turn without too much trouble but U Turns are illegal in Colorado on 50 but hard to believe at 5 AM Barry couldn't have done it without getting caught. Problem is if prosecution doesn't have reliable telematics that the jury trusts saying he rolled his window down to "probably throw out the helmet" and moreso if prosecution brings up the 80 incidents in the middle of othe night then they have a plausible story from Barry saying he saw Elk and went to go look where they were headed and they will see or would have seen a whole lotta pictures of Barry and his antlers. Earlier I saw a poster ask about people that believe Barry is innocent....I'm sure there are some...but the bigger problem is does prosecution have a solid enough case. One person with a critical mind who isn't comfortable sending a man to prison for the rest of his life with the prosecution's speculation is a problem for the prosecution.

"One person with a critical mind who isn't comfortable sending a man to prison for the rest of his life with the prosecution's speculation is a problem for the prosecution."

Not quite. I'd argue "one person ignoring facts, lies, and common sense, is a problem for the prosecution."

It is a fact that Suzanne's footprint ceased when Barry returned home.

It is a fact that Barry's cell phone and truck data show activity when he claimed to be sleeping.

It is a fact that Suzanne's last ping occurred during a time when he had access to her phone.

It is a fact that Barry lied about the state of their marriage, and deleted texts that would have proven this lie.

It is a fact that Barry puts himself driving past the location of the helmet.

It is a fact that Barry lied about what he did in Broomfield, and where he was when he got that phone call.

It is a fact that Barry told dozens of lies, and changed his story.

There are gaps and things that will forever remain unanswered.

For me however, the "who" and the "what" couldn't possibly be more clear.

Barry murdered Suzanne.

 

[Lyanna]

Like everyone on "Unsolved Mysteries" in the late 80's and early 90's, Barry must have been afflicted with some sort of amnesia (that was always the possible explanation).

He's making left turns to follow elk, shooting chipmunks, and suddenly tranquillizing deer after originally claiming he never did so in Colorado.

At least his memory returned, unlike those poor people on that aforementioned show.

I imagine some of them are still wandering the US, hitchhiking while sporting perms.

Don't forget the dodgy tache to go with those perms

 

[DellaC]

Are you saying you believe Barry saw a herd at a time of year when they don't herd?

That he forgot seeing this for a year, and suddenly remembered it dozens of interviews later?

That he saw and followed this herd, and it miraculously put him in the area of the helmet?

That's either a remarkable coincidence, or some diabolical elk.

It does begin to sound like BM is living in some virtual reality world. Does he play video games?

 

[Cindizzi]

I believe everybody understands that the state has the burden to prove BM guilty of murdering his wife, and not that the defense has to counter with an alternate theory. I think for WS discussion purposes, OP would like to see a theory that's different than constantly blaming leery investigators, witnesses, etc., but credible information that points towards BM's innocence. While the two may overlap, evidence painting the defendant innocent is different. MOO

IE sure crowed about “ proving TF innocent “.

Iris Eytan, Dru Nielsen - Colorado Lawyers - The Force of Nature and the Steadying Hand
“We didn’t have to prove his innocence, but we did,” Eytan says.



And when I searched for that quote I just happened to run across a case in El Paso County where IE and Mark Hurlbert went toe to toe.

Citing thin evidence, prosecutors dismiss case against Maketa co-defendant

Hurbert told the judge the dismissal should "in no way" be construed as a sign of San Agustin's innocence - a statement Eytan dismissed as "hooey."

 

[justtrish]

My bil is a park ranger in PA. For his job he use to carry a spotlight in his car. He never used it for hunting as it was illegal, but I remember him using it to show me a herd of deer out in a farmer's field. I believe it is illegal in Colorado to use a light or night vision equipment for hunting. But Barry was not hunting, just observing, or so he says. And he doesn't seem to be overly concerned about following the law. He could have been tracking the elk with either a light or goggles. I wonder what LE found in his truck.

*https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/RulesRegs/Brochure/BigGame/biggame.pdf

My husband grew up in Virginia and the have a spotlighting law there. He was ticketed for spotlighting. He didn't have a gun in his car at all and no way to kill an animal. He learned a hard lesson as it is still illegal to use a spotlight from the car and he owned up to it, took the ticket, and never did that again.. lol It really is disturbing the amount to rules/laws that Barry seems to break surrounding hunting and thinking nothing of it. A good steward of the land who is appreciative of the animals and the laws in place to protect them and others in the area, would not do half this stuff he just admits to as if it's no big deal. Most hunters I know hunt because they enjoy it yes, but also to provide meat for their families and even the community. They respect limits because that ensures a population of animals for generations to come, they don't engage in cruel behaviors. Even though they are killing an animal, they desire to do it as humanely and quickly as possible, they don't take "maybe shots" that might injure, but not kill an animal, they don't hunt in the dark, tranquilize animals to cut antlers off, use illegal guns, etc.

Barry just seems plain obsessed with hunting. It really seems to take over his life and consume his thoughts. That is not healthy even if he didn't harm Suzanne. It seems he had 2 modes. Work and hunting.

 

[Seattle1]

That is difficult as we don't have any information from defense at all yet other than they believe there is exculpatory evidence and even that isn't sorted out legally yet and we don't know everything defense knows. They still don't have Suzanne's car info, laptop info, etc. I have to believe that people who think strongly that he is innocent are people that knew both of them personally and not people that have only been exposed to the chatter and the affidavit.

I think we have the basis for the defense argument on the partial DNA and making room for SODDI defense. Exculpatory is nothing more than a technical legal issue.

And personally knowing the couple is not where guilt or innocence is determined. Love is blind! Evidence or lack of will be the deciding factor.

For the sake of BM's children, who wouldn't welcome credible evidence that somebody else was responsible.

But there's nothing thus far to negate the fact that BM left SM alone on MD for a job he was not permitted to do on Sunday.

There's nothing to negate that SM wanted to terminate her marriage to BM.

There's also nothing to negate BM telling investigators that he fired a tranquilizer dart from his breezeway -- long after he told them he'd never fired any tranquilizers in Colorado.

There's no disputing that BM continuously changed his story to fit the evidence.

And none of this is chatter -- it's exactly why the Court bound BM over for trial.

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

"One person with a critical mind who isn't comfortable sending a man to prison for the rest of his life with the prosecution's speculation is a problem for the prosecution."

Not quite. I'd argue "one person ignoring facts, lies, and common sense, is a problem for the prosecution."

It is a fact that Suzanne's footprint ceased when Barry returned home.

It is a fact that Barry's cell phone and truck data show activity when he claimed to be sleeping.

It is a fact that Suzanne's last ping occurred during a time when he had access to her phone.

It is a fact that Barry lied about the state of their marriage, and deleted texts that would have proven this lie.

It is a fact that Barry puts himself driving past the location of the helmet.

It is a fact that Barry lied about what he did in Broomfield, and where he was when he got that phone call.

It is a fact that Barry told dozens of lies, and changed his story.

There are gaps and things that will forever remain unanswered.

For me however, the "who" and the "what" couldn't possibly be more clear.

Barry murdered Suzanne.

It’s entirely possible that jurors could have IQs on the lower end of the continuum or they could have cognitive deficits in deductive reasoning. However, I haven’t noticed this with Colorado juries. Their MO is putting killers in prison.

 

[LietKynes]

Still Missing - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #93 | Page 45
Bumping this post from the previous thread :
#898

curiouser74 :

Investigators: Burning Remnants Of Underground Coal Mines Are Possible Cause Of Marshall Fire

This Is the One Colorado Fire That Snow Can't Extinguish


Because of the 2019 fire in Decker's south of Salida, and the 2018 coal seam fire west of Salida, I would imagine that BM was aware through his firefighter training of these types of mines and vents that can be hidden from view. Not only being an avid hunter, but trained in the forests through firefighter training with emphasis on mine hazards for firefighters as well as the potential for fire ignition from an underground mine, the likelihood of BM using a mine as a dumping spot seems more of a potential than burying a body in May in that altitude (frozen ground). Denver and surrounding areas do not turn on irrigation until mid April depending on temperatures and higher elevations are later than that if they have irrigation at all. Some areas in higher elevations would still be very cold in May at night.

I do not think they will find her body before trial and not for years to come if ever. Please make me eat those words!

I also do not believe that he ever thought that it would come to him murdering SM, but he had always developed a scenario in his mind, going over the details, incase he was ever backed into a corner. SM having an affair, if he could prove it, would have been a benefit to him to prove he was not the "bad guy" in the relationship. He probably mistakenly thought that if he could prove an affair or drug/alcohol use, that somehow he would pay less for child support or alimony or get custody of MM2. He would look like the hero and SM would not be believed. Too bad for BM finding out later that Colorado is a 50/50 state that does not take infidelity into account during proceedings. BM would have been forced to pay SM alimony for at least 10-20 years based on the length of their marriage and child support for MM2 until they were 19 since SM gave up her outside career to raise the children. ALL tax records and business dealings would be open for discovery if he fought her on alimony. Lawyers fees on both sides would be paid by him if he chose to fight it. The 2 choices being pay full amount leaving BM to live below way below his standards or fight it. Think about all of BM possible shady business practices. Paying in cash for everything is a red flag. Having your own business in Colorado as an LLC allows you to expense a lot. The talk of cash piles, burying cash, paying workers in cash, shady business practices, shoddy work. Investigations into his true financial picture I hope will bring the guilty verdict that most of us are hoping for.

There is more here than just money although that is at the forefront. The unraveling of BM, the lies, the things that keep him awake at night (not to be confused with guilt but strategy only), to be considered a criminal to all but his wife still looks like an angel?? To pay her thousands a month and live in squalor with your personal and business relationships all torn to bits? He loves the attention of the girls, SD, lawyers etc. He feels vindicated and justified that SM had an affair and looks like the bad guy to his daughters and his family and is eating this up.

BM was backed into a corner when SM would not bend and had made up her mind to leave. When he knew she meant it, he extinguished the problem.

Great points brought up.
I hadn't considered BM would know where the coal seam fires would be located.
Also hoping Suzanne will be found.
What a horrid end, if this happened to her !
Disposed of like garbage into a crevasse.
I think Suzanne loved him, but years of mistreatment wore her spirit down.
Imo.

 

[waldojabba]

"One person with a critical mind who isn't comfortable sending a man to prison for the rest of his life with the prosecution's speculation is a problem for the prosecution."

Not quite. I'd argue "one person ignoring facts, lies, and common sense, is a problem for the prosecution."

It is a fact that Suzanne's footprint ceased when Barry returned home.

It is a fact that Barry's cell phone and truck data show activity when he claimed to be sleeping.

It is a fact that Suzanne's last ping occurred during a time when he had access to her phone.

It is a fact that Barry lied about the state of their marriage, and deleted texts that would have proven this lie.

It is a fact that Barry puts himself driving past the location of the helmet.

It is a fact that Barry lied about what he did in Broomfield, and where he was when he got that phone call.

It is a fact that Barry told dozens of lies, and changed his story.

There are gaps and things that will forever remain unanswered.

For me however, the "who" and the "what" couldn't possibly be more clear.

Barry murdered Suzanne.

Agree @MassGuy
Failure to acknowledge evidence in no way means that evidence does not exists
A person with critical thinking skills will have the ability and discernment to be able to connect the dots and tune out the noise and distractions
They will also recognize false equivalencies and understand the importance of context just like most of the posters here do
Twelve people sitting on a jury, all with critical thinking skills ?
That would be a dream come true for the prosecution IMO

 

[Hoss569]

Little humor for the day....

 

[Kemug]

We need to add a weasel!

Yep, the weasel's in (though he did try to weasel his way out of it)

 

[NothingSurprisesAnymore]

Agree @MassGuy
Failure to acknowledge evidence in no way means that evidence does not exists
A person with critical thinking skills will have the ability and discernment to be able to connect the dots and tune out the noise and distractions
They will also recognize false equivalencies and understand the importance of context just like most of the posters here do
Twelve people sitting on a jury, all with critical thinking skills ?
That would be a dream come true for the prosecution IMO

Regarding jurors

Comfortable with varied backgrounds and educational levels.

Two types that concern:

1) The rogue juror

2) The type who feels intellectually superior by seeing anything other than what an average IQ, common sense person can see... that Barry is guilty.

Let's hope they're not on the jury.

JMO

 

[sk716]

Because not only can they cause car accidents, but they are now framing innocent people for murder.

They're in cahoots with the Ninja Bobcat Puma Hybrids.

The end is nigh.

 

[Seattle1]

Hurbert told the judge the dismissal should "in no way" be construed as a sign of San Agustin's innocence - a statement Eytan dismissed as "hooey."

^^rsbbm

So now I'm curious if hurricane IE likes rodeo?!!

Here's the story of Hooey in his own words.

"I grew up in rodeo, and, when I got into my early twenties, I had an opportunity to have a construction job on the West Coast building hospitals in California, and I was introduced to the surf culture. As I became more acquainted with the surf culture, I realized that surfers reminded me a lot of cowboys. I really appreciated their singular passion for what they did. [..] And that's where we came in. We felt like we could build a surf and skate-style brand that celebrates the western athlete."

About Us

 

[sk716]

To me seeing the elk checks out. There was about an 80% moon on 5/10.
Elk were .105 mile along straight road section.
My question is why did BM proceed to Garfield to turn around since the elk were near the intersection of 50 and 225?

Especially when there are two other places in between that are more than big enough for Barry to make a U turn. I'm still puzzled as to why he went all the way to the Garfield turn. The only idea I've got is that the phone got tossed between the helmet and Garfield.

 

[sk716]

If not named, I believe she was on camera with LS but did not want to be shown. She also wasn't a cleaning lady but the property manager that went to the managed properties specifically to discard perishables where guests no longer anticipated due to cancelations related to the covid pandemic. MOO

We should send LS Uber Eats through the trial as a thank you. She did a lot of investigative stuff in the early days. We wouldn't know nearly as much as we do without her.

 

[ar3593]

I can't speak for Suzanne but maybe I can speak for a lot of women like her. What Suzanne probably wanted was the marriage she signed up for, a husband who could communicate, not dismiss. Discuss, not spin. Cooperate, not block. You know, a partnership. Free of deceit. Free of physical and emotional and financial abuse.

For those who are quick to find fault in her, Suzanne did not have another option. He said it -- divorce, not an option. And he didn't seem interested in being a decent, safe spouse.

Pained, she reached a point where she wanted out, needed to be out. Wanted to divorce civilly. Fairly. Which should have been her right. She conceded all the ways she stay connected (stay in the area temporarily, continue with the invoices, help him find a commensurate home).

He had other plans.

And as we've seen, she didn't get a vote.

JMO

Ok, Megnut nailed what should be the State's closing argument statement. So clear and succinct by laying out not only what SM wished for...but what she or any other decent woman is entitled to. Done and Done!!

JMO

 

[Pyrite]

I'm not familiar with any link where according to OP, several experts have contradicted Agent Grusing (i.e., the only person I recall referenced here when he provided testimony that he specifically asked BM if he used a 22 to shoot chipmunks based on his knowledge that it could be used to fire tranquilizer darts).

I’m no expert but I have tried googling to find if a tranquilizer dart could be fired from a firearm chambered for .22 and was not able to find any. I did find places that talked about shooting a dart from a 22 air rifle, but that is different.

I vaguely remember somewhere in these many threads that Grousing admitted to being mistaken about the dart being able to shoot through BMs chipmunk gun. I can’t find it though so could be wrong.

Can any one here find a link showing that a 22 firearm can shoot a tranquilizer dart, besides Grousing’s testimony?

 

[LietKynes]

BM is a piece of work!

1. He told CBS4 that his daughters are terrified to return to the house....

You have all your game cameras, you know, like the ones you put up when your brother in law was trying to find your wife.

2. CBS4 sat down with him at the house on Sunday, with no cameras. He wanted to share his side of the story.

Just like Leticia Stuach, gotta make sure the camera can't see you.

3. We asked Barry why he didn’t join the search. He said it was because he had already spent months doing the same with close friends.

Garbage. He didn't help because he didnt want to help. This is the same guy that said it was "too soon" to call out to abductors. Oh yeah, then there is his 28 second video which was only for facebook viewers...ugh!

4. When her cancer came back, he said he and his daughters were the only family by her side.

Really? In her grievances she said on two cancer appointments BM took off.

5. As for the Val. Card...

How old is it??? In the timeline it says 2017 was the last time SM "ever" posted a picture of her husband on her fb account. Yet posted a picture of her with her girls on May 8. 2020.

6. Suzanne’s daughters started a ******** page to aid in the search for their mother.

No they did not.
Later one of them was listed as a beneficiary.
Don't even get me started on that go fund Barry account. You know the account Barry, it's the account you paid George 4000.00 out of?! (AA).

bbm
Excellent post as always, Warwick !
How tragic that the monies collected "for Suzanne" never went towards helping to find her or justice for her.
It looks like quite early on people (as in, more than one) knew she was never coming back.
A terrible way to treat anyone.
Imo.