Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #95

[MadMcGoo]

Move on folks! Enough with the victim blaming and bickering.

 

[sk716]

So I'm guessing that Suzanne's journal should've been ruled inadmissible too, had not her murderer taken the time to BURN it in the fireplace? You can't cross-examine a dead person, this much is true. These, the texts and her journal, were SUZANNE'S own words and it defies justice to keep them out.
IMFO

That is the crux of the 6th Amendment lawsuits making their way through the courts. I can't cross examine them because my client murdered them, is a terrible argument to try make in front of SCOTUS though. Victims have rights, too, even in death.

MOO

 

[Aloe]

Also, in Barry's mind something "is just a tragedy" when someone causes you to kill them.
JMO

Edit: meant to reply to @Cindizzi

BBM I thought those statements must have originally come from someone else and he thought that they would be effective so appropriated them, like a sales pitch. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

BBM
So much for churches "Welcoming" anyone through the door and into their services. YIKES

I don't think LS was offended. I think it comes with her job description as a reporter. The church and/or members obviously didn't want to respond to any questions by the media.

 

[Kemug]

Thank you for offering a logical explanation for Barry's lies about where he was on Mother's Day when contacted regarding Suzanne not being available via her phone. Let us remember to the humble Christian, "Satan is the father of all lies."

I gave this big lie of Barry's some consideration earlier by attempting to make sense of it. One conclusion that I came to was that Barry lied on purpose and with intention. Was his lying a set up? If he was deceptive about where he was and what he was doing, during this important watershed moment, then he'd lie about most anything. These are not altruistic lies. These are not harmless fibs.

Will he be seen in court as a big fat liar who also lied to the FBI? Perhaps he wants every utterance from his poisonous lips to be thought of as possibly being a lie. Some of Barry's friends and business associates in IN knew he was a liar. Suzanne knew he lied. Didn't his family also know he lied? Was the bracelet Suzanne found really one that belonged to his sister or does she prevaricate, also, ya know, for the greater good?

Will the jury consider any and everything he may have told the investigators and FBI to be important lies? How would the jury discern truth from fiction if he's caught red handed in various lies all along the way? Barry and the truth are not friends. The truth is not in him. Was all of this lying part of his devious plan all along?

My Sunday afternoon musings and specualtions only
.

How about we hitch Barry's sister up to a lie detector, and ask her about the bracelet?

 

[mrjitty]

A large portion of the content posted here has consisted of speculation about BM's character, many taking off from SM's assessment of him as "narcissistic" and as exhibiting the behaviors we associate with a very selfish and self absorbed man. This is an interesting way to pass the time and may be mildly therapeutic for us, but @Momofthreeboys is right to point out that even if this were admissible in evidence, the evidence to prove BM's character is pretty thin and likely selective.

Just as important, the jury will not hear anything of this kind.

The prosecutors, whatever we may think of their competence, could never have considered attempting to prove that BM killed SM based on evidence of his character - including his prior bad acts - because it simply doesn't make the fact that BM killed SM in May, 2020 more likely. If it did, the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause would not be allowed to stand in the way.

None of SM's texts will be admitted for the truth of their contents, and if we want to understand better what is going on, we should begin to focus less on BM's character traits and more on the evidence that makes the elements the prosecution more likely. In the words of the jury instruction:

1. That BM,
2. in the State of Colorado, at or about the date and place charged,
3. after deliberation, and with intent
a. to cause the death of a person other than
himself,
b. caused the death of SM.

After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree.

After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree."

SM's out of court statements may be admitted to show her state of mind: that she was unhappy in the marriage (regardless of justification or lack thereof) and wanted to leave before MM2 left the home; that she had taken concrete steps to do so (e.g. talking and texting to BM about it; planning to look for a separate residence for herself and MM2). All of this evidence makes it more likely that BM intended to kill her to prevent the dissolution of the marriage and that he did so after deliberation.

Some will say it is not enough, standing alone. I agree. But it won't be standing alone. A circumstantial case is like a mosaic of evidence. Each piece is nothing but a bit of colored tile. It's only when you consider them all together that you see that they create a complete picture. Motive in the air proves nothing. But it's part of the picture the prosecution can build. SR can get our eyeballs to watch his show by making statements like, "BM is winning." But that's entertainment. Even SR knows the Super Bowl champions were losing - right up to the point of their victory.

Trials are a human endeavor, and humans are imperfect. Nonetheless, I remain confident that BM will not need suntan lotion this summer.

I agree 100%

We need to be careful not to engage in propensity reasoning.

 

[katydid23]

I agree 100%

We need to be careful not to engage in propensity reasoning.

Here, I looked it up for those of us that were uncertain---



What is propensity reasoning?

Propensity evidence suggests two inferences that can be a legally relevant form of circumstantial evidence. First, it infers the accused's disposition and state of mind using collateral events.


Propensity evidence is evidence of one crime that is used to show the defendant is more likely to have committed another crime.
https://www.fredthia.com/criminal-defense/domestic-violence/domestic-violence-propensity-evidence/
Domestic Violence Propensity Evidence - Newport Beach Criminal ...


Why is propensity evidence not allowed?

Because of its power, propensity evidence is excluded unless it is being used for another purpose. ... 24 (2020) Propensity evidence is evidence that tends to show someone acted in conformity with their character. This evidence is not allowed unless it is used for another purpose such as motive, identity, plan, etc.Apr 8, 2021


Propensity Evidence and its Perils

 

[mrjitty]

So I'm guessing that Suzanne's journal should've been ruled inadmissible too, had not her murderer taken the time to BURN it in the fireplace? You can't cross-examine a dead person, this much is true. These, the texts and her journal, were SUZANNE'S own words and it defies justice to keep them out.
IMFO

As I understand the Judge's ruling, not all of SM's texts are excluded as hearsay.

The texts about the abuse are excluded due to their highly prejudicial effect compared to their evidential value.

Whether or not parts of the journal parts would be admissible would depend on what was in there

02c

 

[mrjitty]

Here, I looked it up for those of us that were uncertain---



What is propensity reasoning?

Propensity evidence suggests two inferences that can be a legally relevant form of circumstantial evidence. First, it infers the accused's disposition and state of mind using collateral events.


Propensity evidence is evidence of one crime that is used to show the defendant is more likely to have committed another crime.
Domestic Violence Propensity Evidence - Newport Beach Criminal ...


Why is propensity evidence not allowed?

Because of its power, propensity evidence is excluded unless it is being used for another purpose. ... 24 (2020) Propensity evidence is evidence that tends to show someone acted in conformity with their character. This evidence is not allowed unless it is used for another purpose such as motive, identity, plan, etc.Apr 8, 2021


Propensity Evidence and its Perils

Sorry mate - I thought I had droned on about this enough recently so made a short post (for once!)

But yes - we want to use this evidence to prove a context/trigger/motive for murder - i.e. imminent separation.

On the other hand, it is a logical fallacy to claim BM had an abusive character, therefore more likely murdered SM. Court's don't allow this.

 

[katydid23]

Sorry mate - I thought I had droned on about this enough recently so made a short post (for once!)

lol, no problem. Most people probably knew the term----I did know but didn't realise until I looked it up.

It can be a problem in this case, because so much of it involves things that may have been communicated to others, by text or other apps.

And much could be seen as prejudicial, because she was purposely listing his faults, as a way to get her own head on straight. So the judge has to walk a fine line, between allowing relevant info that could be important, versus prejudicial gossip.

 

[mrjitty]

lol, no problem. Most people probably knew the term----I did know but didn't realise until I looked it up.

It can be a problem in this case, because so much of it involves things that may have been communicated to others, by text or other apps.

And much could be seen as prejudicial, because she was purposely listing his faults, as a way to get her own head on straight. So the judge has to walk a fine line, between allowing relevant info that could be important, versus prejudicial gossip.

One issue is that the common law develops organically over time, and thus can be a bit out of date.

For instance i recall at law school learning that dying statements are an exception to the hearsay rule, because a person "going to meet their maker" is more likely to be honest. 30 years later that seems even more tenuous to me. Meanwhile, i think that texts to a close confidant about abuse are likely to be reliable enough to show a jury. Of course they are highly prejudicial - but with solid foundation IMO.

 

[Warwick7]

I so agree. I don't buy this "control" thing at all. In the Affidavit, it says Suzanne attacked him. I see zero evidence of him ever having an affair in their marriage. Nothing adds up to me.

You don't have to buy it. You didn't live it. The person who did is no longer here.

There is no need for ever having evidence of his affair.

That's not what made him kill her. It was a fact that she had the affair. That is what made him kill her. moo

 

[mrjitty]

IMO it is important that SM believed BM was unfaithful.

She didn't start covert surveillance on him for no reason. It goes to the evidence she was leaving.

 

[Warwick7]

So I'm guessing that Suzanne's journal should've been ruled inadmissible too, had not her murderer taken the time to BURN it in the fireplace? You can't cross-examine a dead person, this much is true. These, the texts and her journal, were SUZANNE'S own words and it defies justice to keep them out.
IMFO

Bam Marylamby!! Yes her own words. This is her opportunity for her voice to be heard beyond the grave. Her voice is not to be stifled. Her voice is not to be smothered. Her voice is to be heard not burned in a fire.

However, what I think is beautiful, is there are plenty of texts upon texts that will speak in her behalf. This is her voice. This will be her voice. And she will speak beyond the grave! moo

 

[Warwick7]

Barry also said he was embarrassed by the scratches that Suzanne gave him.

Did he ever admit these scratches came from SM?

 

[Kemug]

I wonder if Agent Grusing tosses and turns at night, weighing this evidence, and balancing that. As we do. Probably not - he's not the judge or jury, or even a loved one. He just does his job, and does it brilliantly.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I wonder if Agent Grusing tosses and turns at night, weighing this evidence, and balancing that. As we do. Probably not - he's not the judge or jury, or even a loved one. He just does his job, and does it brilliantly.

He probably doesn't but I bet prosecution does!

 

[Warwick7]

He probably doesn't but I bet prosecution does!

No, I bet Barry Morphew does.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

No, I bet Barry Morphew does.

Yes, Barry also.

 

[Diddian]

I wonder if Agent Grusing tosses and turns at night, weighing this evidence, and balancing that. As we do. Probably not - he's not the judge or jury, or even a loved one. He just does his job, and does it brilliantly.

Grusing comes across as quite an earnest person.

While BM does not. So, those 40 hours of recorded LE interviews are sure to present quite a contrast.

Like a Boy Scout interviewing the middle school bully.