Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #99

[Auntie Cipation]

The tranquilliser has to be relevant due to a bizarre set of coincidences around it:

The sheath was found in the dryer
Barry had apparently washed and dried a pair of shorts identical to ones he was wearing
Barry admitted using tranquilliser on deer to remove their antlers (out of season)
Barry admitted disposing of something related to the tranquilliser the day after Suzanne disappears

Then we have the weird gun stuff, the random bullet..

JMO

It makes me a bit nervous that the prosecution seems to be leaning so heavily on the tranquilizer stuff.

I think SM's digital presence going quiet hours before BM's version of the story, and the truck and phone showing activity when he claims steak/sex/sleeping, are the key evidence that locks him to her death.

The dart and tranq stuff is suggestive, of course, and definitely LE should use it as a lead (which I'm not questioning that they did so) to see what additional evidence can be found, but it's not to my mind a sure thing.

He could easily have strangled her, and all the tranq stuff could be just red herrings, part of his hunting and macho-animal-domination mentality.

I understand that it's likely that the tranq was involved, but it doesn't seem provable barring more evidence (or her body) being found, and so I wish the prosecution would lean on the stronger evidence. MOO

 

[K9Enzo]

IMO, this particular dog handler is a problem to the prosecution now. He’s probably a nice guy, great intentions, has a super dog but his testimony will fall apart once attorney IE and team do their research and essentially audit his records right on the stand at trial. I’m talking about his supporting documentation that backs up this single report. If he says I follow XYZ protocol but then doesn’t show that he does, they will pounce. Prove your dog and training is reliable.

There’s no need to let an attorney get a rise or reaction out of you in court. attorney’s can pound their fist on the table for effect, “cool, you ate your Wheaties today, but I’m not shook because here’s how I back up everything I say”.

Here’s a scenario- handler is training with her search dog, a ball is a reward for this young dog. In a dumb moment she allows the dog to play with a stick, it’s new and FUN. But they are training, dog is in a different zone, work mode. Long story short the dog throws out a false alert to get the new stick as a reward. Wow, smartypants dog, but now she has to spend considerable time documenting how she corrected this training error because this could come back to haunt her in court and more importantly on a real search where a victim might be out there or not.

LE departments are getting smarter with resources they use and wanting handlers that follow a standardized program. I hope this catches on nationwide (Europe does it so much better with working dogs in a uniform way), which will make many dogs teams useless unless they get on board. I’m all for it. IMO

 

[HongKongPhooey]

It makes me a bit nervous that the prosecution seems to be leaning so heavily on the tranquilizer stuff.

I think SM's digital presence going quiet hours before BM's version of the story, and the truck and phone showing activity when he claims steak/sex/sleeping, are the key evidence that locks him to her death.

The dart and tranq stuff is suggestive, of course, and definitely LE should use it as a lead (which I'm not questioning that they did so) to see what additional evidence can be found, but it's not to my mind a sure thing.

He could easily have strangled her, and all the tranq stuff could be just red herrings, part of his hunting and macho-animal-domination mentality.

I understand that it's likely that the tranq was involved, but it doesn't seem provable barring more evidence (or her body) being found, and so I wish the prosecution would lean on the stronger evidence. MOO

I'm not sure they are leaning on it heavily. I think there is far stronger factual evidence they will rely on.

 

[Seattle1]

Didn’t they not find the drugs? The theory being that he tossed any remaining on the way to Broomfield? I thought the judge mentioned they can state what they found but since they found no drugs it would be speculation to have a vet talk about the drugs as well as the vet not being an expert on the drugs’ affect on humans. So I “heard” he was saying it was up to jurors to derive inferences from the allowed facts. So I agree with the judge on the vet. The underlying facts remain, they found a needle sheath, found unused supplies, the gun etc.

Yes, they did find the Rx identified as BAM in the garage -- how else would they know it was expired!

For Judge Lama to grant the defense motion to block the Vet as an expert witness simply because the Rx BAM was not found inside the house (but inside the garage) is illogical and the equivalent of an Iris circular. I find it senseless that Lama could not make the connection how using the sedative to incapacitate SM explains no blood evidence or sign of struggle at the crime scene.

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.

 

[Love Never Fails]

According to LS she observed BM and daughters smirking when the K9 handler was being questioned by Defense. I have a feeling that this handler is lackadaisical about record keeping and not court strong, which is a HUGE rub of mine, however, he was out there at the request of LE searching for YOUR mom who no one knew if she was severely injured waiting for a rescue or god knows what. He probably got a call after supper on a Sunday night and he responded with urgency. That observation from LS made me a bit cranky. IMO

To me it just sounds like Barry. The court is, after all, keeping him from hunting deer and elk and cute Salida women. As for the girls smirking, if they were, well the apples didn’t far from the tree.
Cranky is a nice word.

 

[O.Incandenza]

rsbm. It seems a logical decision imo. I don't think it has to do with the location of BM, though. No body so no autopsy, we have no conclusive evidence of a manner or cause of death in this case. And the only evidence of a tranq dart possibly being used is a cap/sheath, found in the dryer's lint capture, on which 2 DNA mixtures were found and BM's was excluded. Having an expert (and one with no expertise on humans at that) testify on the potential effects on a human is pretty speculative as such.

An aside, but I have no idea why they're running with the tranquilizer theory, jmo but it seems pretty weak in comparison with all the possible other means. At first the prosecution alleged a dart could be fired from the dangerous weapon, then admitted in court it couldn't, and according to reporters at this week's hearings, apparently now they're saying oh but with the power of duct tape is how you could make it all work.

edit: location of BAM or BM lol. Misread the post I was responding to

I think the prosecution's attachment to the tranquilizer theory is mainly due to two considerations:

1. They've charged Barry with first degree murder. If he used tranquilizers and then killed Suzanne elsewhere, then the time between the tranquilizing and her death is sufficient to establish deliberation. We haven't heard a whole lot of other evidence of pre-planning yet. If instead he killed her immediately when he found her texting JL, then second degree murder might be the correct charge.

2. It also explains the lack of physical evidence of a murder in the house. They don't have blood evidence. They don't have a murder weapon. They can't point to a particular spot where she was killed. The tranquilizer helps explain that lack of physical evidence.

Personally, I think it's likely the tranquilizer was involved. There are just a few too many coincidences. But, based on the evidence we've heard, they may have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt it was used. That may not matter though. If a jury is sure he killed Suzanne, they may be very willing to accept the tranquilizer theory.

 

[K9Enzo]

To me it just sounds like Barry. The court is, after all, keeping him from hunting deer and elk and cute Salida women. As for the girls smirking, if they were, well the apples didn’t far from the tree.
Cranky is a nice word.

Thank you. If I misunderstood, and it wasn’t the girls I want to stand corrected.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Yes, they did find the Rx identified as BAM in the garage -- how else would they know it was expired!

For Judge Lama to grant the defense motion to block the Vet as an expert witness simply because the Rx BAM was not found inside the house (but inside the garage) is illogical and the equivalent of an Iris circular. I find it senseless that Lama could not make the connection how using the sedative to incapacitate SM explains no blood evidence or sign of struggle at the crime scene.

Thanks - for some reason I thought they found the paraphernalia but no drugs and assumed since they knew they came from Indiana they were expired. It's a stronger evidence in my mind if find if they found the actual drugs. But the drugs themselves weren't in any evidence photos so that compounded my thinking. Gosh I hate this learning by twitter.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Thank you. If I misunderstood, and it wasn’t the girls I want to stand corrected.

Oh I’m not correcting you. I was on YouTube and thought Lauren said it was Barry and so many people were commenting. I didn’t see any mention at the time. I wasn’t paying much attention to that.

Besides, I think my comment about the tree and the apples still stands.


ETA: I am not demeaning the girls. But the fact is that children have a strange way of turning out more like the mom or the dad as far as personality goes. I’m just not surprised.

 

[WingsOverTX]

Yes, they did find the Rx identified as BAM in the garage -- how else would they know it was expired!

For Judge Lama to grant the defense motion to block the Vet as an expert witness simply because the Rx BAM was not found inside the house (but inside the garage) is illogical and the equivalent of an Iris circular. I find it senseless that Lama could not make the connection how using the sedative to incapacitate SM explains no blood evidence or sign of struggle at the crime scene.

Or maybe he made the connection but is pushing the prosecution into a defensive posture? I'm afraid there are too many defense attorneys in this case. One being the judge. Maybe the prelim leaning in favor of the DA's case as a matter of law is now creating a complicated prosecution due to the evidence being very good but highly circumstantial?

Both sides searching for a single smoking gun but having none seems to make the judge extremely cautious. IANAL but undermining a case by excluding experts (who are obviously subject to cross) seems like a denial of justice. Everyone involved has known from the start it is a circumstantial case.

To now want it become a different kind of case and be unable to make logical inferences with witness expertise is a miscarriage of justice in the eyes of at least one layperson (me).

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

IMO, this particular dog handler is a problem to the prosecution now. He’s probably a nice guy, great intentions, has a super dog but his testimony will fall apart once attorney IE and team do their research and essentially audit his records right on the stand at trial. I’m talking about his supporting documentation that backs up this single report. If he says I follow XYZ protocol but then doesn’t show that he does, they will pounce. Prove your dog and training is reliable.

^^ rsbm

Actually, the prosecution gave up the dog handler as their witness in advance (the prosecution confessed the motion prohibiting Spence from being qualified as an expert witness).

After learning the prosecution would not be using the dog handler, the defense pounced and wants to call the dog handler as a witness (not as expert) and the Court granted this to the defense. And we saw a preview of how the defense will use him -- Iris taking his words out of context and asserting SM's scent was in the woods where the bike was recovered ...

ETA: The defense preview as described by LS recap video.

 

[Megnut]

OoooooOoooooh.

Is this it?

Barry, when confronted with LE's find (the sheath inside the house), Barry incrementally recalled tranquilizing deer from the breezeway.

But two very important things were missing from PP -- an operable delivery system and the reverse-sedation agent.

Which must be what he then claimed to have binned.

See, for Barry to tranquilize the deer, in order to gnaw off their antlers, he also says he woke them back up. (That's how it works -- you sedate an animal just not for illegal purposes -- and then you reverse it so you don't send wildlife away, stumbling and drunken, vulnerable to injury and predation.)

If Barry had no antidote on hand, his story falls apart again.

So he said he threw it away.

Which, whether true or not, taken en total shows an evolving degree of deception. If he didn't use a dart that weekend, why all the lies?

Barry never said there's no way there's anything darty in the house. He laid out a story to explain what he knew they'd found.

Which confirms it.

JMO

 

[Love Never Fails]

OoooooOoooooh.

Is this it?

Barry, when confronted with LE's find (the sheath inside the house), Barry incrementally recalled tranquilizing deer from the breezeway.

But two very important things were missing from PP -- an operable delivery system and the reverse-sedation agent.

Which must be what he then claimed to have binned.

See, for Barry to tranquilize the deer, in order to gnaw off their antlers, he also says he woke them back up. (That's how it works -- you sedate an animal just not for illegal purposes -- and then you reverse it so you don't send wildlife away, stumbling and drunken, vulnerable to injury and predation.)

If Barry had no antidote on hand, his story falls apart again.

So he said he threw it away.

Which, whether true or not, taken en total shows an evolving degree of deception. If he didn't use a dart that weekend, why all the lies?

Barry never said there's no way there's anything darty in the house. He laid out a story to explain what he knew they'd found.

Which confirms it.

JMO

Sure wish you would testify for the prosecution. You have a way with words.

 

[al66pine]

Post of the Day?

...At first the prosecution alleged a dart could be fired from the dangerous weapon, then admitted in court it couldn't,... apparently now they're saying oh but with the power of duct tape is how you could make it all work....

@abams sbm Thx for your post making my day.
"...with the power of duct tape" it could work.

Borrowing a phrase from Homer Simpson -
"Donuts. Is there anything they can't do?"
- and using a bit of literary license:
"Duct tape, is there anything it can't do?"

 

[Seattle1]

The tranquilliser has to be relevant due to a bizarre set of coincidences around it:

The sheath was found in the dryer
Barry had apparently washed and dried a pair of shorts identical to ones he was wearing
Barry admitted using tranquilliser on deer to remove their antlers (out of season)
Barry admitted disposing of something related to the tranquilliser the day after Suzanne disappears

Then we have the weird gun stuff, the random bullet..

JMO

It was BM that placed the Rx dart back in his hands (and/or his pocket) here.

IIRC, Judge Murphy explained that BM brought the Rx dart into the case all on his own long after the investigator stated that the dart gun found inside the gun safe was broken, and appeared not to have been used for some time. BM supported the investigators finding when he first told investigators that he'd never used Rx darts in Colorado, and last used them in Indiana.

But BM couldn't leave it alone. Months later, all on his own, he came back to tell Agent Grusing that he used the Rx dart between his breezeway to incapacitate deer to take their antlers (out of season). He also told Agent Grusing that he discarded Rx dart material in Broomfield -- i.e., the garage bench clean-up story.

MOO

 

[Trebor5591]

It makes me a bit nervous that the prosecution seems to be leaning so heavily on the tranquilizer stuff.

I think SM's digital presence going quiet hours before BM's version of the story, and the truck and phone showing activity when he claims steak/sex/sleeping, are the key evidence that locks him to her death.

The dart and tranq stuff is suggestive, of course, and definitely LE should use it as a lead (which I'm not questioning that they did so) to see what additional evidence can be found, but it's not to my mind a sure thing.

He could easily have strangled her, and all the tranq stuff could be just red herrings, part of his hunting and macho-animal-domination mentality.

I understand that it's likely that the tranq was involved, but it doesn't seem provable barring more evidence (or her body) being found, and so I wish the prosecution would lean on the stronger evidence. MOO

Personally, I think the tranquilizer gun theory is so bizarre, so unbelievable, that it makes the prosecution look like they don't know what they are doing, and so they are desperately clutching at straws.

I did an internet search and was unable to find a single murder where the victim was first tranquilized with a tranquilizer gun. Not a single one.

If Barry was experienced with using a tranquillizer gun, he would know that a darted subject can take up to 5-10 minutes before the drugs take effect. Also, the drugs used, probably Azaperone, are controlled substances and would require a prescription to procure.

So I agree with you, if they want a conviction, I suggest they drop the tranquilizer gun theory.

I did my best to come up with a scenario where he used a Tranquilizer gun and here it is: He comes home, she is sunning herself in the back yard, texting the guy she is having an affair with. He shoots her with the tranquilizer gun, she drops her phone and bolts upstairs and locks herself in her bedroom. He follows and forces entry, cracking the door frame.....But this doesn't work, because she would use her bedroom phone to call for help, assuming she had a bedroom landline. So this is not really realistic, and I think the prosecution should drop the tranquilizer gun theory, if they want a conviction.

 

[waldojabba]

RBBM
Chuckling during Wednesday’s court hearing?! Grinning every time he walks into court?! Joking and laughing with daughters’ in court during a break at an earlier hearing?! Meanwhile his wife and daughters’ Mother, whom he is accused of murdering, is crying out from her clandestine grave (that he put her in imo) to be found and brought home to her family for a proper burial. Unreal. The arrogance, disrespect and absolute gall of this man-child know no bounds. Personally I think he’s enjoying the control of knowing where SM is, and hurting her family members.
He’s absolutely grotesque.

On another note, glad to hear the new attorney is fiery, a much needed and definite plus for the prosecution team. Can’t wait to see them (hopefully/fingers crossed) bring BM down at trial.

Lastly, question for you or any of our WS legal eagles, can the prosecution challenge the Judge’s rulings on some of these motions to disqualify experts, etc. to a higher court i.e., the Colorado Supreme Court?
TIA.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

BBM
On another forum a poster indicated it was indeed possible - they mentioned :
Rule 4.1 - Interlocutory Appeals in Criminal Cases [Effective until July 1, 2022]
Ianal so maybe someone else will weigh in - it just seemed your question was overlooked so I thought I’d jump in IMO

 

[BeckyF]

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.
.

1000 likes.

 

[Seattle1]

I did my best to come up with a scenario where he used a Tranquilizer gun and here it is: He comes home, she is sunning herself in the back yard, texting the guy she is having an affair with. He shoots her with the tranquilizer gun, she drops her phone and bolts upstairs and locks herself in her bedroom. He follows and forces entry, cracking the door frame.....But this doesn't work, because she would use her bedroom phone to call for help, assuming she had a bedroom landline. So this is not really realistic, and I think the prosecution should drop the tranquilizer gun theory, if they want a conviction.

^^rsbm

I share this scenario with the exception that I never believed a dart gun was involved. I think BM jabbed/injected SM with the Rxdart -- gun wasn't required. We learned very early that there was no landline at PP and no cell signal around their property. MOO

 

[WingsOverTX]

Personally, I think the tranquilizer gun theory is so bizarre, so unbelievable, that it makes the prosecution look like they don't know what they are doing, and so they are desperately clutching at straws.

I did an internet search and was unable to find a single murder where the victim was first tranquilized with a tranquilizer gun. Not a single one.

If Barry was experienced with using a tranquillizer gun, he would know that a darted subject can take up to 5-10 minutes before the drugs take effect. Also, the drugs used, probably Azaperone, are controlled substances and would require a prescription to procure.

So I agree with you, if they want a conviction, I suggest they drop the tranquilizer gun theory.

I did my best to come up with a scenario where he used a Tranquilizer gun and here it is: He comes home, she is sunning herself in the back yard, texting the guy she is having an affair with. He shoots her with the tranquilizer gun, she drops her phone and bolts upstairs and locks herself in her bedroom. He follows and forces entry, cracking the door frame.....But this doesn't work, because she would use her bedroom phone to call for help, assuming she had a bedroom landline. So this is not really realistic, and I think the prosecution should drop the tranquilizer gun theory, if they want a conviction.

I don't believe they had a landline phone.

The master bedroom with the cracked door frame is downstairs.

BM had a choice of weapons. But he choose one that was unlikely to leave blood evidence.

Some have speculated he didn't even need a weapon to inject her with tranq because he could easily overpower her physically.

I believe the AA that says he hunted her down like an animal. But you can believe as you wish.
MOO