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

[Seattle1]

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?

I asked him if he used a .22 caliber. At that point I had known — and I had not disclosed to Mr. Morphew yet that we found a tranquilizer dart cap in the dryer and I knew from Chaffee county that a .22 cartridge would fire. So when he was talking about running around the outside of the house I asked him if it was a .22 that he used and he said yes, it was.

^^SBM
Respectfully, we know from the testimony given under oath that CCSO and FBI Agent Grusing know that .22 caliber would fire the dart. If OP cites several experts who apparently contradict witness testimony, this should be linked per TOS.

ETA: add the link to the quoted PH testimony which is very long

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

 

[Spartygirl]

So maybe we need to be looking at similar crimes that may have inspired him, and hopefully glean some clues from them?

His Foresic Files podcasts he listened to.
I would start there, especially the one mentioned in the docs similar case.. person gone missing on bike ride.
JMO

and sorry if this has already been mentioned, just catching up and you all are moving real fast here.

 

[Pyrite]

Respectfully, we know from the testimony given under oath that CCSO and FBI Agent Grusing know that .22 caliber would fire the dart.

Not to pick nits (ok maybe a little nit picking), but Grousing testified (from your quote) that a 22 cartridge would fire, not that a 22 firearm could shoot the dart. Again all IMO, I’ve read that some darts use a 22 blank cartridge to provide the propulsion to a dart, but you aren’t using a 22 caliber firearm to shoot the dart, but a specially designed dart gun.

In any case it might all be a red herring, as IMO the case will rely on electronic forensics vs BM’s lies.

edit added, and yes, per the TOS op should link to the experts or state it is opinion.

 

[MassGuy]

Not to pick nits (ok maybe a little nit picking), but Grousing testified (from your quote) that a 22 cartridge would fire, not that a 22 firearm could shoot the dart. Again all IMO, I’ve read that some darts use a 22 blank cartridge to provide the propulsion to a dart, but you aren’t using a 22 caliber firearm to shoot the dart, but a specially designed dart gun.

In any case it might all be a red herring, as IMO the case will rely on electronic forensics vs BM’s lies.

This is precisely why BM's lie about shooting deer with tranquilizer darts just a few weeks before, is so big.

In order for him to do that, he had to have a weapon that fired those projectiles. So if it's not the "chipmunk gun," and it's not that apparently inoperable dart gun they found, then what did he use?

Barry tells us that such a weapon exists, so if it hasn't been located, then that looks really bad.

The beauty is the defense claiming "he didn't even have a working dart gun," is rendered moot by Barry's own words.

Whoops.

 

[Seattle1]

Not to pick nits (ok maybe a little nit picking), but Grousing testified (from your quote) that a 22 cartridge would fire, not that a 22 firearm could shoot the dart. Again all IMO, I’ve read that some darts use a 22 blank cartridge to provide the propulsion to a dart, but you aren’t using a 22 caliber firearm to shoot the dart, but a specially designed dart gun.

In any case it might all be a red herring, as IMO the case will rely on electronic forensics vs BM’s lies.

edit added, and yes, per the TOS op should link to the experts or state it is opinion.

Thank you @Pyrite. I didn't realize the snipped portion of Agent Grusing's testimony was insufficient here but had time to edit my post to link the entire quote from the PH-- which is quite lengthy.

 

[al66pine]

Shoshona & Wig?
Someone (sorry, forgot who) posted they'd like to see pic of SD in wig. To compare that pic vs SM?

MSM, AA, PH, or ??? had pic of SD & BM at Antlers Hotel, apparently from surv cam recording, kinda sorta grainy, almost B&W, but w both of them recognizable. Can anyone help w a link? Thx in adv

Some posters discussed whether there is/is not a strong resemblance btwn SD & SM. Personally IDK, but offer this gen. observation: conclusions may vary, depending on cam angle, lighting, background, clothing, etc. And whether we can take time to study both pix side by side. my2ct

ETA: My apologies. When posting this, I had not caught on the thread. Sorry.
Thanks to posters who found pic & linked it and to others who contributed to discussion.

 

[charminglane]

I’m raising my hand.
It was me!

 

[Pyrite]

This is precisely why BM's lie about shooting deer with tranquilizer darts just a few weeks before, is so big.

In order for him to do that, he had to have a weapon that fired those projectiles. So if it's not the "chipmunk gun," and it's not that apparently inoperable dart gun they found, then what did he use?

Barry tells us that such a weapon exists, so if it hasn't been located, then that looks really bad.

The beauty is the defense claiming "he didn't even have a working dart gun," is rendered moot by Barry's own words.

Whoops.

IMO there is overwhelming evidence that if BM opens his mouth, the way to bet is he is telling a lie. If the defense shows this is a life time habit by finding witnesses to testify with examples of BM lying to make his self look better, do you think it will make his lies less meaningful to the jury? Will it introduce reasonable doubt in a jurors mind?

 

[ar3593]

So Barry lies to the Ritters about being at the wall when he received that phone call.

He said the same to investigators, claiming that he had to actually leave the site to drop his tools off at the hotel. Surveillance proved this was a lie, and he left his room, went to his truck, and then put the tools at the front desk.

He said he went back and forth from the hotel to the wall all day, but really only went there once.

He said he had time after visiting the wall, which is why he was throwing trash away. The problem is, 4 of these dumps took place before he visited that location.

How does a jury just ignore this stuff? How does anyone?

I am praying the prosecution reads all these basic yet damning facts here on Websleuths. Our pros like @MassGuy spell things out you just cannot argue!! The State could pick up all kinds of pearls here ..

JMO

 

[Pyrite]

Thank you @Pyrite. I didn't realize the snipped portion of Agent Grusing's testimony was insufficient here but had time to edit my post to link the entire quote from the PH-- which is quite lengthy.

You’re welcome @Seattle1.

respectfully, after reading the entire link twice, I’m still not seeing where Agent Grousing said BM’s chipmunk gun or any .22 firearm, is capable of shooting the dart. I do see where BM says he did shoot deer with tranqs even though the tranq gun found was broken and BM said it had been a long time. So either BM is lying or he had a working tranq gun that hasn’t been found IMO.

Frankly, even if I did see Agent Grousing stated the dart was fired through the chipmunk gun, I would want to find a second opinion somewhere showing a tranq dart could be shot through a 22 firearm. I have not found one. I respect LE, but do not think they are all knowing.

 

[Cassady]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ga...famous-court-cases-you-could-have-bet-on/amp/

Does Vegas have prop bets on this case yet?

If so, what are the current odds for a conviction?

At this point I would not bet a dime on the state obtaining a conviction....I also would not bet any money on an aquittal either.

Based on over two decades of trying jury cases, including serious criminal cases, this is starting to smell like a potential mistrial if it proceeds to trial at all.

At this point in the proceedings the government should have a very sound theory of the case and a timeline that fits that theory. The government's case should be in a position to easily obtain a conviction and thier case should be getting stronger. Here, it is more like a "choose your own ending" theory, basically leaving the jury to assume or guess how and where the defendant hid the body.

In my experience, the state needs to make an easy road map to a conviction for the jury. If not, the jury is not going to fill in the blank for the state or make up possible scenarios to bolster the state's case.

If the state's case also has a witness with credibility issues, like Agent Cahill, it makes it even harder to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Cahill was removed from the case right after the preliminary hearing because the government did not like his testimony according to the LS recap. This was prior to the accidental discharge of the firearm in his home. Cahill was the lead on the DNA match follow ups. The fact that he was removed from the case because of his testimony at the PH and then received a Brady letter is very troubling to say the least.

Most attorneys who practice criminal law would agree that this is a huge red flag and trouble for the government.

Beyond those issues, you have to take into account the potential DNA evidence and digitl data from the victim's vehicle, which apparently had not been turned over to the defense as of a couple of weeks ago.

It does not help that the state has already been precluded by the judge from seeking testimony from a witness concerning prior bad acts of the defendant.

Additionally, no person who has read the AA will be allowed to set as a jury on this case because it is full of inadmissable evidence.

People who look at the AA as a bible to this case need to understand that the AA is not evidence, nor will it be admitted as evidence.

The State will have their entire case in chief to establish the narrative of the AA, minus inadmissible evidence. How the first two days of the government's testimony goes will determine the outcome of the trial...IMO.

If their case comes in clean the first couple of days, they will have a good foundation.

If their case is picked apart like an elk carcass on the side of a mountain, then they will be in trouble and it will be an uphil climb to obtain a conviction for murder.

IMO

 

[Seattle1]

IMO there is overwhelming evidence that if BM opens his mouth, the way to bet is he is telling a lie. If the defense shows this is a life time habit by finding witnesses to testify with examples of BM lying to make his self look better, do you think it will make his lies less meaningful to the jury? Will it introduce reasonable doubt in a jurors mind?

To be clear, the final audit of the investigation summarized that BM would change his information to fit the evidence.

This is not about BM being a natural born liar!

There was no reason whatsoever for BM to incriminate himself here (putting a tranquilzer dart in his hands) by coming back to Agent Grusing several months later only to cite he shot a dear with a tranq dart from his breezeway --after he initially stated he'd never used tranquilizers in Colorado.

Again, BM changed his story to match evidence after learning a dart sleeve was located in his clothes dryer.

For convenience, take note a searchable AA is linked in the MEDIA thread.

 

[Pyrite]

There was no reason whatsoever for BM to incriminate himself here (putting a tranquilzer dart in his hands) by coming back to Agent Grusing several months later only to cite he shot a dear with a tranq dart from his breezeway --after he initially stated he'd never used tranquilizers in Colorado.

I totally agree with this. There was no reason for BM to incriminate himself over and over again with all his contradictions. All he had to do was say I want a lawyer or refuse to talk at all. But instead he talked and changed his story every time LE said evidence shows it didn’t happen the way you said it did.

I have trouble understanding how a person could kill and disappear their spouse with no physical crime scene evidence, which would seem to take some sort of brains. Yet, still be so dumb as to to talk to LE every time they wanted, never lawyer up, never say I’m done talking, keep changing his story…

Can anyone who has listen to or read true crime possibly be so dumb, yet hide the crime scene and body so well neither is found? It kind of boggles my mind.

 

[MassGuy]

I totally agree with this. There was no reason for BM to incriminate himself over and over again with all his contradictions. All he had to do was say I want a lawyer or refuse to talk at all. But instead he talked and changed his story every time LE said evidence shows it didn’t happen the way you said it did.

I have trouble understanding how a person could kill and disappear their spouse with no physical crime scene evidence, which would seem to take some sort of brains. Yet, still be so dumb as to to talk to LE every time they wanted, never lawyer up, never say I’m done talking, keep changing his story…

Can anyone who has listen to or read true crime possibly be so dumb, yet hide the crime scene and body so well neither is found? It kind of boggles my mind.

He got one thing right, then screwed up everything he possibly could.

Even idiots know things, and Barry knows the outdoors. He also had the advantage of a vast expanse of unforgiving terrain.

He killed Suzanne in a bloodless way, and likely transported her body to a remote location that he was familiar with.

After that it all went it hell, starting with his hilarious and damning alibi.

 

[Pyrite]

At this point in the proceedings the government should have a very sound theory of the case and a timeline that fits that theory. The government's case should be in a position to easily obtain a conviction and thier case should be getting stronger. Here, it is more like a "choose your own ending" theory, basically leaving the jury to assume or guess how and where the defendant hid the body.

I listen to Scott Reich

. He agrees with you that the states case isn’t looking like a slam dunk at this point.

IMO It’s Not that BM didn’t do it, just that the state hasn’t overcome reasonable doubt in the court proceedings to date and the the defense seems to be winning on most of the procedural pleadings.

 

[PaulaDC]

I, as well!
I've shared it - actually repeated it - so many times with an empathetic companion...(not a pooka, sadly).
Really, must read Mary Chase's 1944 play, "Harvey". Or at least see the 1950 film with James Stewart. Yes!

I cat sit a cat named after that movie.

 

[Seattle1]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ga...famous-court-cases-you-could-have-bet-on/amp/

Does Vegas have prop bets on this case yet?

If so, what are the current odds for a conviction?

At this point I would not bet a dime on the state obtaining a conviction....I also would not bet any money on an aquittal either.

Based on over two decades of trying jury cases, including serious criminal cases, this is starting to smell like a potential mistrial if it proceeds to trial at all.

At this point in the proceedings the government should have a very sound theory of the case and a timeline that fits that theory. The government's case should be in a position to easily obtain a conviction and thier case should be getting stronger. Here, it is more like a "choose your own ending" theory, basically leaving the jury to assume or guess how and where the defendant hid the body.

In my experience, the state needs to make an easy road map to a conviction for the jury. If not, the jury is not going to fill in the blank for the state or make up possible scenarios to bolster the state's case.

If the state's case also has a witness with credibility issues, like Agent Cahill, it makes it even harder to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Cahill was removed from the case right after the preliminary hearing because the government did not like his testimony according to the LS recap. This was prior to the accidental discharge of the firearm in his home. Cahill was the lead on the DNA match follow ups. The fact that he was removed from the case because of his testimony at the PH and then received a Brady letter is very troubling to say the least.

Most attorneys who practice criminal law would agree that this is a huge red flag and trouble for the government.

Beyond those issues, you have to take into account the potential DNA evidence and digitl data from the victim's vehicle, which apparently had not been turned over to the defense as of a couple of weeks ago.

It does not help that the state has already been precluded by the judge from seeking testimony from a witness concerning prior bad acts of the defendant.

Additionally, no person who has read the AA will be allowed to set as a jury on this case because it is full of inadmissable evidence.

People who look at the AA as a bible to this case need to understand that the AA is not evidence, nor will it be admitted as evidence.

The State will have their entire case in chief to establish the narrative of the AA, minus inadmissible evidence. How the first two days of the government's testimony goes will determine the outcome of the trial...IMO.

If their case comes in clean the first couple of days, they will have a good foundation.

If their case is picked apart like an elk carcass on the side of a mountain, then they will be in trouble and it will be an uphil climb to obtain a conviction for murder.

IMO

Good to see you here @Cassady.

In OP's summation, I disagree on two points including the statements regarding the credibility of J. Cahill, former CBI Agent, and excluding jurors that are familiar or have knowledge of the AA.

The defense attorney's allegation that Cahill was terminated from the Morphew investigation because DA Stanely was unhappy with his performance during the PH is not fact, and no corroborating evidence was introduced to support this alleged rumor.

And it wouldn't be the first time the defense hurled an allegation in court that was not true. Most recently, the defense accused an individual by name of illegally recording a court hearing and broadcasting the same on YouTube. The allegation was patently false and resulted in the Court ordering very strict courtroom decorum that has severely crippled journalists of their tools to do their job.

It's also not as if former Agent Cahill was assigned to the mailroom following his transfer from this case. Public information indicates Cahill went on to assist in a serious investigation resulting in the conviction of two LE officers in connection with an excessive force incident (against an at-risk adult).

Relative to the AA, as you know, the jurors will never have access to the 125+ page document where extracted details from the document have been published across the globe. The court knows that in the digital media age, it's not reasonable to expect an entire jury pool to not have read or watched any news about this case. The real question is whether or not the juror candidate can set apart any information, listen to the evidence presented in court, and be reasonably fair as a juror. MOO

 

[Boxer]

Pg

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.

There are pullouts and two other roads like 225 joining 50 before Garfield.
MOO he wanted to go where he was going.

 

[Cassady]

I listen to Scott Reich

. He agrees with you that the states case isn’t looking like a slam dunk at this point.

IMO It’s Not that BM didn’t do it, just that the state hasn’t overcome reasonable doubt in the court proceedings to date and the the defense seems to be winning on most of the procedural pleadings.

I think Scott has a pretty good grasp of this case and the jury system in Colorado. I also think most attorneys with extensive criminal law experience would agree with his take so far....IMO.

The defense has had some success in pre-trial litigation for sure.

The first two days of the state's case in chief will be critical to them obtaining a conviction in this matter...IMO

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

I totally agree with this. There was no reason for BM to incriminate himself over and over again with all his contradictions. All he had to do was say I want a lawyer or refuse to talk at all. But instead he talked and changed his story every time LE said evidence shows it didn’t happen the way you said it did.

I have trouble understanding how a person could kill and disappear their spouse with no physical crime scene evidence, which would seem to take some sort of brains. Yet, still be so dumb as to to talk to LE every time they wanted, never lawyer up, never say I’m done talking, keep changing his story…

Can anyone who has listen to or read true crime possibly be so dumb, yet hide the crime scene and body so well neither is found? It kind of boggles my mind.

Barry thought he was smarter than the investigators. He thought he’d covered all of his bases. He was sure he could manage LE. If he’d admitted that he needed counsel, then his ego would’ve been injured.

There was a friend of Barry’s who said he would end up going along with Barry’s lies because Barry lied so much it just wasn’t worth the trouble to protest. I guess Barry was overconfident in thinking he could wear down the investigators in similar fashion.