How wrong is it that I would love to Will Smith that chuckle right out of Barry? Absolutely nothing funny about this Barry so what do you find humorous? Your daughters are without their mom yet you laugh. Pig.
Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #99
- Thread starter Mysti88c
- Start date
- Status
I hope Barry shares this side of him with the jury. Will never be lost on them. His wife is missing and he is accused of her murder. He finds what about this situation amusing? I am encouraged that this new prosecutor will put him in his place. Sadly it takes a man to bring down another if one could even say Barry is indeed a man. He didn’t protect his wife and refuses to protect his daughters. The women in his life need to take a hard look at the what ifs and I sincerely hope this new guy walks them through it one step at a time. Prayers for Suzanne and her loved ones.
I just love the fact that the defence was so hell bent on the partial DNA so they could insinuate SODDI and when it doesn’t pan out, they try to have the DNA expert turfed. Judge denied the motion 
. I love the irony in that! Stick THAT in your hat IE! 
. I love the irony in that! Stick THAT in your hat IE! 
MemPat
Without Art the Earth is just Eh!
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 47,944
I keep picturing life at home with Barry and the girls (and the current clueless hot mama).....lots of silliness, making fun of Suzanne's affair, ridiculing LE and the prosecution every time the defense seems to win a point. There could still be some money-not-handed-over-to-attorneys so it's probably a constant party.
In a month or so when everyone must sit in court and listen to facts spoken by wise, rational people, those immature minds are going to change. As much as the defense will try to muddle the facts, the big black clouds of guilt will gather over Barry. Eventually the downpour will come and the girls will see him through different eyes. End of party.
If there is indeed a mistrial remember that Barry's future wives and girlfriends will one day rub him the wrong way, DV will inevitably occur and they'll be phoning LE with details, ready to testify at Trial #2 (with public defenders!) Remember that quote. "Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior," and you know that Barry will find himself dissatisfied again and will repeat. (He knows how to hide a body so he'll be confident.) Look for more witnesses or more dead wives. (Think Drew Peterson and a whole string of others.)
In spite of the barrage of PR put out to make the prosecution look weak and Barry appear to be a good guy, I believe the 12 jurors will not want to see an arrogant, devious, violent man like Barry on the streets to murder more innocent women.
Last edited:
You just have to wonder, what the heck are they all so flipping happy about?
As far as this duet of "no worries" young'uns,...?
To borrow the explanation proffered by the late "Dr. of Democracy",
- heads filled with mush.
- Joined
- May 29, 2020
- Messages
- 771
- Reaction score
- 16,546
Was Barry’s laughter in court due to his attorneys giving the K9 handler a hard time?
I’d like to know where SD lived with her then bf in relation to the Cushman property. Why was she in the PP area on May 10th enabling her to report on a “suspicious” vehicle in the neighbourhood? Was Sunday her scheduled cleaning day? Did the Cushman’s need their AirBnb cleaned THAT day in preparation for incoming guests or possible guests that left on that day or on the 9th? Seems odd given all the Covid restrictions in place at that time.
I don’t know about anyone else, but the fact that she just “happened” to be in the area on the day SM allegedly goes missing (we know better), rubs me the wrong way. Just too coinky dinky for me. I know that at the time of arrest and later the PH, there was no evidence that Bare was having an affair, but I do wonder if something hasn’t turned up since then that will tell another tale??
I don’t know about anyone else, but the fact that she just “happened” to be in the area on the day SM allegedly goes missing (we know better), rubs me the wrong way. Just too coinky dinky for me. I know that at the time of arrest and later the PH, there was no evidence that Bare was having an affair, but I do wonder if something hasn’t turned up since then that will tell another tale??
BAM/Tranq. Evidence?
{ETA. A looong post. Practically speaking, it's a moot point, as Judge ruled that Vets may not give opn. as expert witness. And now iiuc, toooo late, too close to trial, for prosecutor to find another expert witness re BAM/tranq.}
In the PP home (likely mine & yours too), there were prob'ly 10 or 20 items that a person could use to kill another.
Toward top of list = Rx or OTC Medicines?
Absent a body or remains to autopsy, would it help establish SM's death, for a chemist, toxicologist, pharmacist, or physician to get on the stand to answer hypothetical question like this:
If a person forced a 105 pound middle aged woman to take 10 __ pills, would it, in your expert opinion, sedate the woman to an unconsciousness state for some minutes?
If she were forced to take 50 __ pills, would that, IYEO, likely cause her death?
If answer is yes??? So??? There's no body w traces or remnants of those drugs. No body w dart marks. Recovery of a body w traces of those drugs & dart marks would seem to lay a firmer foundation for prosecutor to call a professional to give an expert opinion.
Otherwise, w no body w traces of drug, would there be a sufficient foundation or basis?
These other items, common to many households, were prob'ly in PP home too. More difficult to administer involuntarily (to force to ingest, to give by hypodermic needle/syringe, etc.) to a unwilling subject.
- Cleaning products (ammonia, furniture polish),
- Motor vehicle solutions (anti-freeze, brake or trans. fluid).
- Cosmetic items (nail polish remover, hair dyes).
An appropriate witness could give expert opinion that a person forced to ingest or who is injected w a certain amt./volume of ^ would be sedated. Or w. more of same would die.
Conceding that BAM/tranq. is unusual; we might search hundreds of homes in Chaffee County or elsewhere, before finding one w BAM & darts. It could have some shock appeal to MSM & jury.
Some ppl may think that a witness giving expert opinion on BAM/tranq. would sway the jury to estab her disappearance as a death, but I'm not sure. my2ct
{ETA. A looong post. Practically speaking, it's a moot point, as Judge ruled that Vets may not give opn. as expert witness. And now iiuc, toooo late, too close to trial, for prosecutor to find another expert witness re BAM/tranq.}
In the PP home (likely mine & yours too), there were prob'ly 10 or 20 items that a person could use to kill another.
Toward top of list = Rx or OTC Medicines?
Absent a body or remains to autopsy, would it help establish SM's death, for a chemist, toxicologist, pharmacist, or physician to get on the stand to answer hypothetical question like this:
If a person forced a 105 pound middle aged woman to take 10 __ pills, would it, in your expert opinion, sedate the woman to an unconsciousness state for some minutes?
If she were forced to take 50 __ pills, would that, IYEO, likely cause her death?
If answer is yes??? So??? There's no body w traces or remnants of those drugs. No body w dart marks. Recovery of a body w traces of those drugs & dart marks would seem to lay a firmer foundation for prosecutor to call a professional to give an expert opinion.
Otherwise, w no body w traces of drug, would there be a sufficient foundation or basis?
These other items, common to many households, were prob'ly in PP home too. More difficult to administer involuntarily (to force to ingest, to give by hypodermic needle/syringe, etc.) to a unwilling subject.
- Cleaning products (ammonia, furniture polish),
- Motor vehicle solutions (anti-freeze, brake or trans. fluid).
- Cosmetic items (nail polish remover, hair dyes).
An appropriate witness could give expert opinion that a person forced to ingest or who is injected w a certain amt./volume of ^ would be sedated. Or w. more of same would die.
Conceding that BAM/tranq. is unusual; we might search hundreds of homes in Chaffee County or elsewhere, before finding one w BAM & darts. It could have some shock appeal to MSM & jury.
Some ppl may think that a witness giving expert opinion on BAM/tranq. would sway the jury to estab her disappearance as a death, but I'm not sure. my2ct
Last edited:
Speaking of medication, I wonder what happened to the prescription SM picked up prior to her death. Iirc it too is missing along with the phone, charger, towel and journal, right? I can understand him getting rid of the other stuff (possibly used the charger to strangle her) but why ditch the medication? I wonder what the medication was? Was it a narcotic? You can sell that stuff! And, he did know a lot of “meth heads.”But if not, why bother getting rid of it?
But if not, why bother getting rid of it?
DeDee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 7,346
- Reaction score
- 42,220
This is how I see it. It is my merely opinions and speculations based upon facts of this case.
Barry is incapable of protecting the daughters. One must first love by showing he values their happiness. If he cared about their happiness, he would have allowed their mother a divorce so they would still have the benefit of both parents in their lives yet, instead, he elected to murder their mother in a cynical, calculating manner.
Faith and hope benefit ourselves while love benefits the receiver of our love. Suzanne endured troubles, with her health and struggles within her marriage, yet held onto her spiritual faith and the hopes for a happy, peaceful life but she was denied the beauty found in loving another man, of living to see her daughters mature, marry, and perhaps, have children of their own.
Isn't it greater to love than to be loved? I would say no. To be loved is the most generous gift someone can give to us. It is the gift of kindness, gentleness without jealousy or irritability. To be loved, boosts our self confidence and motivates us to reach our fullest potential. Barry said he loved Suzanne but he was not gentle with her. He was jealous and irritated with her.
I see these three as rejoicing in wrongdoing when they should rejoice in truth. I see Barry as receiving the benefit of their love, while his, in return, is conditional, as it was with Suzanne. Barry resented Suzanne for no longer needing him while he swelled with resentfulness and bitterness and harsh criticisms.
Barry is a user. He used their children against Suzanne. He used his friends and co-workers. He betrayed business associates. He's a hypocrite. He hired "meth" users yet detested those who used drugs. He searched for cute young girls. Think about that - young girls. How young, Barry?
In Suzanne's last proof of life photo, she was not drunk from wine or beer. She was intoxicated from the unconditional love she was receiving from JL. Moments later, she'd be hit with a tranquilizer dart that would sedate her long enough for Barry to hide her body. It is why he's charged with Murder1.
In LSs video, I learned, for the first time, that Barry's tranq medication was expired by two years. Most meds are still good for potentially three years. I have a prescription from AUG 2020 that remains just as effective as the day it was filled.
I find it reprehensible that Barry tranquilized animals in order to saw off their antlers to sell at a profit. I find it unforgivable that he tranquilized his wife so he could kill her more easily without much of a fight. Suzanne, at this point in her life, possessed a strong desire to live - to live for love. She fought back.
The jury will see the startling images of those scratches on Barry's arm and know brushing against a branch did not cause those marks. They won't need an expert to inform them what their eyes can clearly see. The scratches were made by a desperate lady who was raging against the dying of the light.
.
Barry is incapable of protecting the daughters. One must first love by showing he values their happiness. If he cared about their happiness, he would have allowed their mother a divorce so they would still have the benefit of both parents in their lives yet, instead, he elected to murder their mother in a cynical, calculating manner.
Faith and hope benefit ourselves while love benefits the receiver of our love. Suzanne endured troubles, with her health and struggles within her marriage, yet held onto her spiritual faith and the hopes for a happy, peaceful life but she was denied the beauty found in loving another man, of living to see her daughters mature, marry, and perhaps, have children of their own.
Isn't it greater to love than to be loved? I would say no. To be loved is the most generous gift someone can give to us. It is the gift of kindness, gentleness without jealousy or irritability. To be loved, boosts our self confidence and motivates us to reach our fullest potential. Barry said he loved Suzanne but he was not gentle with her. He was jealous and irritated with her.
I see these three as rejoicing in wrongdoing when they should rejoice in truth. I see Barry as receiving the benefit of their love, while his, in return, is conditional, as it was with Suzanne. Barry resented Suzanne for no longer needing him while he swelled with resentfulness and bitterness and harsh criticisms.
Barry is a user. He used their children against Suzanne. He used his friends and co-workers. He betrayed business associates. He's a hypocrite. He hired "meth" users yet detested those who used drugs. He searched for cute young girls. Think about that - young girls. How young, Barry?
In Suzanne's last proof of life photo, she was not drunk from wine or beer. She was intoxicated from the unconditional love she was receiving from JL. Moments later, she'd be hit with a tranquilizer dart that would sedate her long enough for Barry to hide her body. It is why he's charged with Murder1.
In LSs video, I learned, for the first time, that Barry's tranq medication was expired by two years. Most meds are still good for potentially three years. I have a prescription from AUG 2020 that remains just as effective as the day it was filled.
I find it reprehensible that Barry tranquilized animals in order to saw off their antlers to sell at a profit. I find it unforgivable that he tranquilized his wife so he could kill her more easily without much of a fight. Suzanne, at this point in her life, possessed a strong desire to live - to live for love. She fought back.
The jury will see the startling images of those scratches on Barry's arm and know brushing against a branch did not cause those marks. They won't need an expert to inform them what their eyes can clearly see. The scratches were made by a desperate lady who was raging against the dying of the light.
.
MemPat
Without Art the Earth is just Eh!
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 47,944
Speaking of medication, I wonder what happened to the prescription SM picked up prior to her death. Iirc it too is missing along with the phone, charger, towel and journal, right? I can understand him getting rid of the other stuff (possibly used the charger to strangle her) but why ditch the medication? I wonder what the medication was? Was it a narcotic? You can sell that stuff! And, he did know a lot of “meth heads.”
It wouldn't be her chemo because assuming she's on Rituxin (which is the follow-up antibody drug for Lymphoma.....I've forgotten.....Is that what she has?), that's given by in an infusion, not by mouth. I would guess her prescription was something for anxiety (perhaps Zanax or Ativan) which would be highly sought after in Barry's world of itinerant laborers. Could also be pain meds for body aches. I can't see him just burying something with a street value in the mine.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 45,177
- Reaction score
- 463,629
The Mountain Mail news link below provides the best insight into how/why the prosecution is being cut off at the knees by Judge Lama granting the defense's motions to deny their witnesses.
Lama's terrible analogy with the tranq dart and why he was denying the Vet as the prosecution's witness tells me that he thinks like Iris! MOO
We know that Judge Murphy never called it too speculative that BM used a dart on SM.
More expert testimony blocked from Morphew trial
3/30/22
She [Iris] told the judge “The prosecution has made this needle sheath as their claim that Mr. Morphew murdered his wife.” Previous testimony in the case indicated that DNA was found on the tranquilizer cap but that it was not Barry Morphew’s.
Prosecutor Mark Hurlbert said the inference that Morphew used the wildlife tranquilizer on his wife is based on the fact that Morphew admitted he had used the tranquilizer on deer and that there was no blood evidence found in the Morphew home.
Hurlbert said the intent was for the wildlife expert to testify that if the tranquilizer could be used to kill a deer a parallel could be drawn that it could be used to kill a human.
In granting the defense motion to block the expert testimony, Judge Lama said to begin with, there was no trace of the tranquilizer in the house and in a no-body homicide, no direct evidence that Suzanne Morphew was tranquilized.
Lama said it would simply be too speculative to allow the prosecution to proceed only on a theory that a tranquilizer was used on Suzanne Morphew.
[..]
Lama said similar speculation could be made that if a kitchen knife was found or if the gun was found in the safe, they could be the murder weapons.
Judge Lama clarified that he was not excluding the discovery of the syringe cap in the dryer as part of the prosecution’s evidence, only that the expert testimony was being excluded at trial.
[..]
Judge Lama found that there was no willful misconduct by prosecutors in not learning until Wednesday about Spence’s written report on the search.
Saying that dismissing the case was too severe, the judge cited case law that “the need to find the truth is paramount.” Judge Lama said confessing the motion prohibiting Spence from being qualified as an expert witness was a sufficient sanction.
Another pre-trial hearing for Morphew is set for April 19th in Cañon City. He is set to go on trial in about four weeks when jury selection gets underway on April 28th and 29th. The trial is expected to last up to five weeks.
@Niner
Lama's terrible analogy with the tranq dart and why he was denying the Vet as the prosecution's witness tells me that he thinks like Iris! MOO
We know that Judge Murphy never called it too speculative that BM used a dart on SM.
More expert testimony blocked from Morphew trial
3/30/22
She [Iris] told the judge “The prosecution has made this needle sheath as their claim that Mr. Morphew murdered his wife.” Previous testimony in the case indicated that DNA was found on the tranquilizer cap but that it was not Barry Morphew’s.
Prosecutor Mark Hurlbert said the inference that Morphew used the wildlife tranquilizer on his wife is based on the fact that Morphew admitted he had used the tranquilizer on deer and that there was no blood evidence found in the Morphew home.
Hurlbert said the intent was for the wildlife expert to testify that if the tranquilizer could be used to kill a deer a parallel could be drawn that it could be used to kill a human.
In granting the defense motion to block the expert testimony, Judge Lama said to begin with, there was no trace of the tranquilizer in the house and in a no-body homicide, no direct evidence that Suzanne Morphew was tranquilized.
Lama said it would simply be too speculative to allow the prosecution to proceed only on a theory that a tranquilizer was used on Suzanne Morphew.
[..]
Lama said similar speculation could be made that if a kitchen knife was found or if the gun was found in the safe, they could be the murder weapons.
Judge Lama clarified that he was not excluding the discovery of the syringe cap in the dryer as part of the prosecution’s evidence, only that the expert testimony was being excluded at trial.
[..]
Judge Lama found that there was no willful misconduct by prosecutors in not learning until Wednesday about Spence’s written report on the search.
Saying that dismissing the case was too severe, the judge cited case law that “the need to find the truth is paramount.” Judge Lama said confessing the motion prohibiting Spence from being qualified as an expert witness was a sufficient sanction.
Another pre-trial hearing for Morphew is set for April 19th in Cañon City. He is set to go on trial in about four weeks when jury selection gets underway on April 28th and 29th. The trial is expected to last up to five weeks.
@Niner
I think I'll call them Fang1 and Fang2. And the ducks are Huey, Dewey and Louie. Nice little chaps.
Vet Not to Testify as Expert Witness?
Vets had no firsthand involvement,
no direct contact w SM, not before or after her disappearance.
From info in AA, afaik -
- neither Vet administered BAM to human.
- no peer-reviewed lit, no controlled studies, no FDA investigational or trial studies, yadda yadda, re BAM use on humans, so there's no scientific basis on which Vet could base expert or professional opinion re BAM effects on humans.***
Even if the Vet had been allowed to speak as an expert witness, imo Vet's opinion about BAM effects on human would be inadmissible. Imo no scientific basis.
my2ct
___________________________
* Not sure exactly what part of BAM & dart info from AA, the prosecution wants to put on.
Per AA, LE interviewed two vet's w CO wildlife agency, familiar w BAM animal tranq/similar use on wildlife. Basically, if administered to a human, predicted that BAM would cause sedation, possibly death of human.
Not sure if or how it's relevant.
** These Vets had no firsthand involvement w SM
- did not administer BAM/similar drug to SM, by dart or otherwise.
- did not observe BM or anyone administer BAM/similar drug to SM.
- did not perform or assist in an autopsy on SM, did not run tox/drug tests, did not examine X-rays or scans done p.m., did not examine tissues p.m. under a scope, etc.
*** In AA, one vet said she read of one case where 1/100 of a dose (without specifying quantity - an ounce, gram; milligram, microgram?) was administered to a person.
One anecdote does not constitute scientific evidence.
@O.Incandenza sbm bbm Thx for your post. Agreeing in part.*
Vets had no firsthand involvement,
no direct contact w SM, not before or after her disappearance.
From info in AA, afaik -
- neither Vet administered BAM to human.
- no peer-reviewed lit, no controlled studies, no FDA investigational or trial studies, yadda yadda, re BAM use on humans, so there's no scientific basis on which Vet could base expert or professional opinion re BAM effects on humans.***
Even if the Vet had been allowed to speak as an expert witness, imo Vet's opinion about BAM effects on human would be inadmissible. Imo no scientific basis.
my2ct
___________________________
* Not sure exactly what part of BAM & dart info from AA, the prosecution wants to put on.
Per AA, LE interviewed two vet's w CO wildlife agency, familiar w BAM animal tranq/similar use on wildlife. Basically, if administered to a human, predicted that BAM would cause sedation, possibly death of human.
Not sure if or how it's relevant.
** These Vets had no firsthand involvement w SM
- did not administer BAM/similar drug to SM, by dart or otherwise.
- did not observe BM or anyone administer BAM/similar drug to SM.
- did not perform or assist in an autopsy on SM, did not run tox/drug tests, did not examine X-rays or scans done p.m., did not examine tissues p.m. under a scope, etc.
*** In AA, one vet said she read of one case where 1/100 of a dose (without specifying quantity - an ounce, gram; milligram, microgram?) was administered to a person.
One anecdote does not constitute scientific evidence.
Last edited:
Absolutely. For the ones who seek justice for Suzanne, it’s very odd.
Aloe
Former Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2020
- Messages
- 676
- Reaction score
- 7,111
I'm very curious about this as well. I wonder how much time SD spent down at the river. I wonder if she was actually in Salida on MD or maybe in Broomfield for part of the day?
No man who has lost his wife of so many years would have any inclination to chuckle inside the courtroom where he is being tried for murder.
No man who professes his innocence walks into the same courtroom with his arm Candy in tow, aware of all of the lies he told that a good portion of the public knows about.
No man who professes his innocence walks into the same courtroom with his arm Candy in tow, aware of all of the lies he told that a good portion of the public knows about.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 148
- Guests online
- 2,069
- Total visitors
- 2,217