Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #97

[justtrish]

Absolutely. Not only did at least one witness say she had a journal, but they said she kept it with her other two books (Bible and Alanon).

Barry claimed that he didn't even know she had one.

If they can prove its existence, it's a big piece of circumstantial evidence. The only person on earth with a motive to make it disappear is Barry.

I could be misremembering, but I think we heard that older journals were found.

ETA: It was one of the daughters who said she had one. Pages 6 and 119View attachment 336114View attachment 336116

Yep! Random murderers are not concerned with a persons journal. If it is always there and then it isn't, I think it's relevant. The things that are missing are her phone AND charger, her journal, and her. So she ran away with her phone and charger, but never used them again? Took her journal, but not her purse. Staged her bike and helmet somehow.. maybe she hitchhiked and tossed it out the window. Every scenario for the missing things just doesn't equal a random abduction. Her girls knew she had a journal, but Barry "didn't even know she had one"

Every single one of these little things that could possibly be explained away, can't just be taken out of the equation. There are way to many of them. If it were one or two things that could be coincidence or just unexplained sure maybe that would be silly to introduce them, but there are SO MANY here and they all can't just be coincidence. It all leads to Barry. All of it. It is evidence that will hold up in court. It is powerful when presented all together. His behavior, the missing items, her lack of communication, her powerful words via text and those recordings. She is speaking loudly and so is Barry.

 

[justtrish]

Does anyone know if deleted items from a phone can be time stamped?

Barry deleting texts on say May 9th in the evening time or early on the 10th would sure look damning for him. I'd love to know WHEN he got rid of evidence. If it was right when they were sent, maybe not as incriminating because it could be argued that he didn't want the girls to see, but why go back days later and delete those? OR if it was sometime on the 11th or 12? I recall seeing his phone was not taken until the 12, might have been the 13th. That is 3 days he had to get rid of what was on it.

 

[Kemug]

I live in Scotland and am familiar with not proven verdicts . It means the accused cannot be tried again EVER at a later stage even if more evidence comes to light so it has same outcome as not guilty . Many cases have fallen foul to this verdict over the years . Imo it needs removed from Scottish law . Google Amanda Duffy murder for a perfect example not proven doesn't work .

Thank you, interesting to hear a Scot's opinion on Not Proven. I did just google Amanda Duffy, that poor young woman. Yes, you are right, "not proven" didn't work for her. Do you think "Double Jeopardy" should be abolished?

 

[Kemug]

I would love to know what Sho was deleting on her phone - it was obviously something she didn't want LE to see. Do you think those deletions can be/have been retrieved?

 

[susiQ]

I would love to know what Sho was deleting on her phone - it was obviously something she didn't want LE to see. Do you think those deletions can be/have been retrieved?

You’ve been in my head! I’ve been thinking about that ALL day.

 

[mom2chloe]

RSBM

Seriously the criminal courts need to get some year 2022 system upgrades

Seriously something needs to be done. Not admitting any thoughts, mention or proof of DV? I know there is not much we can do with the world’s current state of affairs but we certainly could start a petition or something. The world needs to know that no one takes DV lightly anymore and we need to shine the light brightly. Suzanne is our focus on this thread but there are too many DV victims for us to remain silent. What can we collectively do because something must be done?

 

[PaulaDC]

Just the fact that Suzanne mentioned it in her texts proves abuse. I’m not sure what I think of this judge. I don’t know his reason for being so soft in domestic violence. But I have questions.

That’s abuse also. You don’t take something belonging to someone else and destroy it in a fire.

And you don't slam your brakes on while driving pissed off with a passenger who is the love of your life flopping around in the passenger seat, just my opinion.

 

[mom2chloe]

The only nut job on the loose with a gun was Barry.

Except for those pesky Raccoons with opposable thumbs who were likely opening and closing Barry’s truck doors and proudly carrying those equally pesky key fobs. Beautiful devils!

 

[mom2chloe]

Just the fact that Suzanne mentioned it in her texts proves abuse. I’m not sure what I think of this judge. I don’t know his reason for being so soft on domestic violence. But I have questions.

We are all familiar with the term of victim blaming but what about blatant victim disregard? That’s exactly what this is IMO
Most of us have someone we know who has been subjected to DV. We need to put an end to it. Decades ago. IMO

 

[10ofRods]

I would love to know what Sho was deleting on her phone - it was obviously something she didn't want LE to see. Do you think those deletions can be/have been retrieved?

I do think they are retrievable, technically - but who knows if they were, at this point? But then, we don't know all the discovery by any means.

 

[Iwondertoo]

I would love to know what Sho was deleting on her phone - it was obviously something she didn't want LE to see. Do you think those deletions can be/have been retrieved?

Would LE have grounds to confiscate her phone though? As far as I know, she hasn't been implicated in SM's disappearance and deleting messages on your own phone isn't a crime so would a judge have any reason to sign a search warrant for her to give up her phone?

I doubt her deleted messages will come in to play during the trial. JMO.

 

[susiQ]

Would LE have grounds to confiscate her phone though? As far as I know, she hasn't been implicated in SM's disappearance and deleting messages on your own phone isn't a crime so would a judge have any reason to sign a search warrant for her to give up her phone?

I doubt her deleted messages will come in to play during the trial. JMO.

SD and BM claim they met at the dumpster in October 2020, yet individuals came forward to report they had been in a relationship since July 2020, although at time of arrest LE had not confirmed that. I find it incredibly odd that it was SD that called in to CCSO to report seeing strange vehicles in the PP area around the time Suzanne disappeared. I’m sure LE found that a little too coincidental as well. Another cleaning woman believes she met up with Barry and Suzanne at the dumpster on I believe May 6, 2020 (someone correct me here if I’m mistaken), but wasn’t that the day SM texted “I’m done?” I find it hard to believe SM took a stroll to the dumpster with BM that evening. AND, then we have SD telling LE that she’s been told she looks like Suzanne. Too much coinky dinky for me. I’m not sure LE could get a search warrant based on that but it sure would have been nice!

 

[Spartygirl]

It is a sentence enhancer in this case allowing the judge to add additional time to a sentence should he be found guilty above the sentencing guidelines.

I am in no way an atty but I have to ask this--If DV is a "Sentence Enhancer, how can examples of this DV NOT be allowed in court ?? I mean, it is right there in the court case.

Criminal sentencing enhancements increase the possible sentence for a crime. Typically, enhancements relate to the defendant’s history or specific details regarding the circumstances of the crime that increase its gravity.

BBM-- the obvious history of BM's history of DV would and should be part of this crime, especially since it was added as an "Enhancer" to this court case.

I get that it is in "text messages" or "told" to someone by Suzanne but the text messages should be enough proof along with MM2's statements.

IDK... like I said, I am not a legal eagle at all but just have not been able to figure out why the Judge is NOT allowing this type of evidence that was collected to be presented in court. Especially since it was added to the offense per court record.

 

[Spartygirl]

Except for those pesky Raccoons with opposable thumbs who were likely opening and closing Barry’s truck doors and proudly carrying those equally pesky key fobs. Beautiful devils!

NO.. LOL..not raccoons, IMO.. it was the Chipmunks.. getting revenge on Bare for "shooting" around the yard at them.

**sorry, couldn't resist***

 

[al66pine]

"Not Proven" Verdicts?

Scotland still has a "not proven" verdict. I would like to see it in other countries as well.

@Kemug and @Fidobell
I'm trying to follow rationale for "not proven"
verdict in criminal trials in Scotland.

"The jury has a choice of three verdicts: guilty (a conviction), not guilty (acquittal) and not proven (also acquittal)."*
If a jury returns a "not proven" verdict, it is the same as an acquittal, iiuc.
Scotland also has a statute against Double Jeopardy (w three narrow exceptions).**

Since after a not proven verdict, the defendant can't be retried, how does the not proven verdict benefit to anyone? I can see a potential social detriment to defendant who may live w a dark cloud over his reputation, of not being found not guilty.

And "... hung jury is an impossibility in
Scottish criminal law..."*

Regardless, interesting to read about criminal procedure in other countries. my2ct
_________________________
* In modern Scots criminal law the not proven verdict can be described as "an historical accident."
Trial by jury in Scotland - Wikipedia.

* "Juries... consist of 15 people; if jurors drop out... trial can continue with a minimum of 12 jurors. In criminal trials conviction is on the basis of a
majority verdict, with eight jurors required to decide that the accused is guilty; should fewer than eight jurors declare a guilty verdict then the accused is acquitted, so a hung jury is an impossibility in Scottish criminal law..."
Trial by jury in Scotland - Wikipedia.

** The Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011.
Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 - Wikipedia

 

[crhedBngr]

NO.. LOL..not raccoons, IMO.. it was the Chipmunks.. getting revenge on Bare for "shooting" around the yard at them.

**sorry, couldn't resist***

You'll note my avatar . . .

 

[susiQ]

NO.. LOL..not raccoons, IMO.. it was the Chipmunks.. getting revenge on Bare for "shooting" around the yard at them.

**sorry, couldn't resist***

I get sad when I hear of BM shooting chipmunks. We have one here at the house and every year he/she digs his way out from under our concrete porch in the spring and pitches out dirt and gravel into the garden. Then he fills it in and comes out somewhere else piling up some more dirt and gravel. We can actually see the depressions where he’s been digging under the asphalt. It never occurred to me to shoot him. It can’t even be the same chipmunk because we’ve been here for 27 years! Then there’s the chippies at the lake running to and fro. Nope, never thought of shooting the little critters. The grandchildren and I throw them some nuts and berries. I guess we’re not killers, like Barry. I’m not against people hunting for food, but killing just for the sake of killing, I don’t understand.

When I think of a chipmunk revenge, I envision the scene in Monty Python’s In Search of the Holy Grail. You know, the “rabbit” scene, except it’s a chipmunk coming at Barry.

 

[susiQ]

You'll note my avatar . . .

Love it!!

 

[Spartygirl]

You'll note my avatar . . .

Sure wish we had a "LOVE" button in here.

 

[crhedBngr]

Love it!!

Sure wish we had a "LOVE" button in here.

Thanks.

No, I can't see shooting the little guys, either. They can be destructive; we had squirrels chew through two sets of patio lights; we replaced them with "squirrel-proof lights".

So far, no issues.