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

[BDAJAG]

This makes some sense to me because I can’t understand why Suzanne asked Mrs. Ritter to not come around the days while MM1 and 2 were obviously missing. Still curious as to why then and those dates given the circumstances. IMO

Good morning Chloe's mom!

But how is it we know this?
From Mrs. Ritter?
Hmm.
Even if Mrs. Ritter did not share the coffee klatch"I'm done!" earthquake with Mr. Ritter - who, if he did get his wife's, "How was your day, dear?" briefing over dinner that evening, may have had a vote in whether his wife ought to have anymore to do with the Morphew Matter for the moment - did she not volunteer this information to LE [was it?] after Suzanne's disappearance?

In these early moments/days, imo, the Ritters may have been trying to extricate themselves from the whole mess and, if so, Mrs. Ritter's assertion that Suzanne did not want her to "come around" warrants further scrutiny. To what end, I cannot be certain Notwithstanding, it may be a fresh/ new/differing piece to this still unfolding 'mosaic of murder' - oops! that's not a Christie title, is it? I think I'm safe.Whew!

# # #​

Thinking abit further - always perilous - if Mrs. Ritter is being truthful, would not there be text evidence of Suzanne's request, and be such at either or both ends of her communication? For, surely, Suzanne would not have strolled over and knocked on the Ritter door to express that she didn't 'want to bothered thank you very much'.
Nah. That never happened.

 

[Scootie98]

I think the time she went missing has never changed from late Saturday afternoon until the time the first people were at the house looking for her - so a roughly 23 hour period of time. I've not heard anything that changes that window factually yet and that is what the prosecution is presenting. The prosecution is presenting a shorter time period ending when Barry left for Broomfield so a 12-13 time period and saying that Barry murdered her at some point during that time period. I agree, if there was proof that Suzanne was alive after 5 AM then this case would never have survived preliminary but defense doesn't have to prove Barry is innocent exactly, they just need to create reasonable doubt about the prosecution's conclusions. If they were to decide to point the finger at someone else specifically, they are required by law to disclose prior to trial. Part two in the link below are the obligations of defense to the prosecution. Rule 16 - Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, Colo. R. Crim. P. 16 | Casetext Search + Citator

The back drop is that there is absolutely no evidence that Suzanne was on a bike ride Sunday. No one saw her alive on Sunday at any time, anywhere. The displaced (planted) bicycle serves only to add suspicion as it does not fit the bike-riding pattern that Suzanne clearly established. As stated....proof of life ended on Saturday, with Barry being at the scene of the last proof within minutes. He claims to have been with her the rest of the day and into Sunday morning...a full 14 1/2 hours following the last proof of life. Attempts to reach her by multiple persons while supposedly in Barry's company all failed. These red flags are waving feverishly to be seen by a jury.

 

[FromGermany1]

I think this is unique though because Barry does own and use tranquillizer darts for deer. Most people probably don't own these or use them, heck before this case I didn't even know a person could own and use tranquillizers for things. Maybe Barry had this tranquillizer in his garage on the work bench ready in case deer strolled through and in his fit of rage did grab it being something close and handy and ready to go?

The way the phone bounced around, I have thought he may have ran around back and she went in through that door and locked it, he ran back around the house and through the garage to get into the house and grabbed it on the way. He gets to her door and busts it in. I don't know if she would have had time to call for help.

Why should SM have run to escape her husband? There has to be a threat first. But in which form did this threat happen??

 

[FromGermany1]

SM. Left Alone Most of Mo-Day?
@Diddian Thx for your post, w thoughts about (possibly selfish fam members?) leaving a Mom alone on that day.

Many here expressed that, esp'ly early on. As the gen'ly assumed/perceived Morphews-as-a-Perfect Family idea faded, a few posters noted that some Moms would prefer to have a day of solitude instead of traditional MD rituals.

Was SM looking forward to stretches of time online w Jeff L that specific weekend? I imagine a woman in SM's position may have felt relieved, anticipating that BM would not barge in unexpectedly to interrupt her communications w Jeff.

Personally IDK, just thinking aloud. my2ct.

I believe, Suzanne would have known, that on MD her married lover would be less able to contact her on SM than other days. But Suzanne was dead already, when JL did have less time for her on Sunday (MD).

 

[Scootie98]

I think the time she went missing has never changed from late Saturday afternoon until the time the first people were at the house looking for her - so a roughly 23 hour period of time. I've not heard anything that changes that window factually yet and that is what the prosecution is presenting. The prosecution is presenting a shorter time period ending when Barry left for Broomfield so a 12-13 time period and saying that Barry murdered her at some point during that time period. I agree, if there was proof that Suzanne was alive after 5 AM then this case would never have survived preliminary but defense doesn't have to prove Barry is innocent exactly, they just need to create reasonable doubt about the prosecution's conclusions. If they were to decide to point the finger at someone else specifically, they are required by law to disclose prior to trial. Part two in the link below are the obligations of defense to the prosecution. Rule 16 - Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, Colo. R. Crim. P. 16 | Casetext Search + Citator

The back drop is that there is absolutely no evidence that Suzanne was on a bike ride Sunday. No one saw her alive on Sunday at any time, anywhere. The displaced (planted) bicycle serves only to add suspicion as it does not fit the bike-riding pattern that Suzanne clearly established. As stated....proof of life ended on Saturday, with Barry being at the scene of the last proof within minutes. He claims to have been with her the rest of the day and into Sunday morning...a full 14 1/2 hours following the last proof of life. Attempts to reach her by multiple persons while supposedly in Barry's company all failed. These red flags are waving feverishly to be seen by a jury.

IMO, the less the prosecution mentions the fact that the victim, a married woman with children, was having an affair with a married man (who had a wife and children) the better off the prosecution will be. No one deserves to die because they are cheating, but that fact will be part of the equation the jury will consider, and the less it is brought into evidence, the better off the prosecution will be, if they want a conviction. MOO

can't disagree. However, the defense will press this issue their way. The prosecutor must address the marital problems. One of Suzanne's main complaints, to paraphrase...is that Barry "assigned" an identity to her rather than allowing her to own her own. There was an element of desperation in Suzanne's motives and desire to leave. This too must be highlighted by the prosecution. That desperation was met with Barry's own desperation to stop a divorce from happening.

 

[FromGermany1]

I've recently made some posts referring to BM using an Rx dart to incapacitate SM.

For clarification purposes, I think it was a mistake to use the term dart since I think it implies BM used a dart gun to fire the tranquilizer at SM.

I believe the correct description should be Rx needle sheath since that was the actual evidence found inside of the dryer. I think the same would easily fit inside BM's pocket (or even the bedsheet).

Lastly, I never believed a dart gun was involved here and if SM was injected with an anesthetic, it was by BM jabbing SM, and not by the firing of a dart gun.

I apologize for any miscommunication in my earlier posts.

I can imagine, BM needed distance to Suzanne, when sedating/murdering her. So he had the feeling of being less gruesome to his "angle" (later turned his mind into being innocent). I believe, he preferred to shoot at her and not putting his hands on her himself (with injecting the dart). A coward, you know. IMO

 

[BDAJAG]

dbm
Pardonnez-moi.
Merci!​

 

[Megnut]

Renewed talk of the helmet got me thinking...

And well, well, well... if Barry was cleaning house in the early morning hours of MD, while also asleep, perhaps he gathered up Suzanne's turquoise jacket and baby blue bike helmet for disposal, and then when he retrieved her bike from the back of her RR (never even eyeballing the important sunglasses and Camelbak in the front seat), he found her other baby blue bike helmet, strapped to her bike.

Not impossible IMO she had two.

And who would know if she did? Very few.... and they'd have no way of knowing what was or wasn't missing because the house was locked down on Sunday.

Would LE even know?!!!! Who'd be in a position to know she had two and know both were missing?

And no middle-aged-women-body-snatcher in the middle-of-pleasantmountainsville abductor would take the time to search out and throw out Suzanne's bike and helmet, in two places no less. But one bike and two helmets?

Ouch.

Doubling down on a "bike ride."

Only one person had the motive, means and opportunity to do that.

One bike, one jacket, two helmets, no Camelbak.

Minor league crime staging. Swing and a miss. Good way to bottom out.

JMO

 

[CGray123]

I thought it might be worth considering the standards for opinion testimony as we continue to evaluate Judge L's decisions. Colo. R. Evid. 701 governs opinion testimony by non-experts:

Rule 701 - Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses, Colo. R. Evid. 701

"If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702."

Colo. R. Evid. 702 and 703 govern opinion testimony by experts:

Rule 702 - Testimony by Experts, Colo. R. Evid. 702

"If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."

Rule 703 - Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts, Colo. R. Evid. 703

"The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect."

In People v. Schreck, the Colorado Supreme Court abandoned a long-established rule that an expert's methodology must be generally accepted in the scientific community in fav0r of a more flexible and liberal judicial inquiry:

"[The trial court's] inquiry should focus on the reliability and relevance of the proffered evidence and requires a determination as to (1) the reliability of the scientific principles, (2) the qualifications of the witness, and (3) the usefulness of the testimony to the jury. We also hold that when a trial court applies CRE 702 to determine the reliability of scientific evidence, its inquiry should be broad in nature and consider the totality of the circumstances of each specific case.
...

In light of this liberal inquiry, a trial court should also apply its discretionary authority under CRE 403 to ensure that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice."

----

In Schreck, the prosecution appealed directly to the Supreme Court the trial court's rejection of DNA evidence under the old rule. So, in answer to a question previously raised on this thread, the District Attorney could appeal Judge L's decision to exclude the DV expert the prosecution identified, or any other expert that is essential to the prosecution.

What I see in this case is a prosecution that aggressively has attempted to designate witnesses as experts who are not commonly so endorsed, to bolster the weight of their testimony by adding that status. I truly doubt that the prosecution is counting on gaining expert status for most of these witnesses.

The defense has pushed back just as aggressively, and is now seeking to limit the opinion testimony of these same witnesses who will be allowed to testify as non-experts. Whether this tactic succeeds is, of course, problematic.

I disagreed with Judge L's decision to exclude evidence of BM's previous abuse of his wife and the related decision to exclude the DV expert to explain some of SM's behavior the jury may not have the background to understand (e.g. the "Why did she stay with him if she felt unsafe?" question). I firmly believe the judge is operating on a stereotypical understanding of women that is all too common, especially in rural communities. But the calls were within his discretion, and the Supreme Court could only overturn them if they were "clearly erroneous" or "arbitrary". I did not take these decisions to be evidence of defense bias on Judge L's part, and I doubt they will be appealed by the DA.

The upcoming Schreck hearing may be more hotly contested, if the witnesses at issue are the ones who will present and explain the truck and phone data to the jury. If the prosecution loses any of these, the case against BM will be in trouble.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I thought it might be worth considering the standards for opinion testimony as we continue to evaluate Judge L's decisions. Colo. R. Evid. 701 governs opinion testimony by non-experts:

Rule 701 - Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses, Colo. R. Evid. 701

"If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702."

Colo. R. Evid. 702 and 703 govern opinion testimony by experts:

Rule 702 - Testimony by Experts, Colo. R. Evid. 702

"If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."

Rule 703 - Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts, Colo. R. Evid. 703

"The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect."

In People v. Schreck, the Colorado Supreme Court abandoned a long-established rule that an expert's methodology must be generally accepted in the scientific community in fav0r of a more flexible and liberal judicial inquiry:

"[The trial court's] inquiry should focus on the reliability and relevance of the proffered evidence and requires a determination as to (1) the reliability of the scientific principles, (2) the qualifications of the witness, and (3) the usefulness of the testimony to the jury. We also hold that when a trial court applies CRE 702 to determine the reliability of scientific evidence, its inquiry should be broad in nature and consider the totality of the circumstances of each specific case.
...

In light of this liberal inquiry, a trial court should also apply its discretionary authority under CRE 403 to ensure that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice."

----

In Schreck, the prosecution appealed directly to the Supreme Court the trial court's rejection of DNA evidence under the old rule. So, in answer to a question previously raised on this thread, the District Attorney could appeal Judge L's decision to exclude the DV expert the prosecution identified, or any other expert that is essential to the prosecution.

What I see in this case is a prosecution that aggressively has attempted to designate witnesses as experts who are not commonly so endorsed, to bolster the weight of their testimony by adding that status. I truly doubt that the prosecution is counting on gaining expert status for most of these witnesses.

The defense has pushed back just as aggressively, and is now seeking to limit the opinion testimony of these same witnesses who will be allowed to testify as non-experts. Whether this tactic succeeds is, of course, problematic.

I disagreed with Judge L's decision to exclude evidence of BM's previous abuse of his wife and the related decision to exclude the DV expert to explain some of SM's behavior the jury may not have the background to understand (e.g. the "Why did she stay with him if she felt unsafe?" question). I firmly believe the judge is operating on a stereotypical understanding of women that is all too common, especially in rural communities. But the calls were within his discretion, and the Supreme Court could only overturn them if they were "clearly erroneous" or "arbitrary". I did not take these decisions to be evidence of defense bias on Judge L's part, and I doubt they will be appealed by the DA.

The upcoming Schreck hearing may be more hotly contested, if the witnesses at issue are the ones who will present and explain the truck and phone data to the jury. If the prosecution loses any of these, the case against BM will be in trouble.

I hope there will be experts for the data. So much of the case that will actually make it to trial is based on that data. I think it would help me understand quite a few aspects of this case that have objectively troubled me from the beginning.

 

[susiQ]

I can imagine, BM needed distance to Suzanne, when sedating/murdering her. So he had the feeling of being less gruesome to his "angle" (later turned his mind into being innocent). I believe, he preferred to shoot at her and not putting his hands on her himself (with injecting the dart). A coward, you know. IMO

I thought that way for a bit too, but now I’m in the other camp. I think it was “up close and personal.” Angry Bare!

Possible scenario: LE know he was moving around the house quickly through his phone coordinates but was Suzanne’s moving quickly too? Or, was it in the house already. Do LE know that too? He may have been scooting around to see where she was and if not outside then went into the house and realized she was in the bedroom and had locked the door. She knew he was coming home. In that case, she was cornered. She may not have realized the danger. He quickly kicks in the door not leaving her any time to get out a text. Perhaps she was in the shower? There’s a struggle and he sticks in the dart. So, when did he load the dart? Before he left to meet MG at the river property? The night before? There’s a reason they charged him with Murder 1.

Another possible scenario: He had the loaded dart with him in one of his many pockets when he arrived home, found Suzanne on the patio, and approached her in an unthreatening manner and darted her at his first opportunity and then the chase ensued. Suzanne makes it into the house and locks herself into the bedroom, but she doesn’t have her phone, it’s still on the patio. Before he kicks the door in she quickly scribbles something into her journal by the bedside. Is that why it’s missing? Barry’s waits outside the door until there’s silence and then forces his way in. He carries an unconscious Suzanne out of the house and puts her on the trailer and finishes his evil deed. This might explain the cadaver dogs hitting on the trailer. Barry, in handling her dead body, ends up transferring cadaverine to the seat of the Bobcat somehow.

Of course, there are a number of ways all this could have played out and without all the evidence the prosecution has, we can only guess at the sequence of events. Even with it, we may never know. What we do know is he killed her. The scratches on his arms are very suspicious. Looks like fingernail scratches to me. Scabbed, but the red hue around them indicates they weren’t old and still healing.

It won’t be long and I think we’ll have a better idea of how it went down. JMHO.

 

[justtrish]

Why should SM have run to escape her husband? There has to be a threat first. But in which form did this threat happen??

We may never know exactly why, but I think she was sun bathing and messaging with Jeff. We know Barry did odd things that day by going home, but not really going home. He was parked down the driveway (by looking at various photos and google maps it seems that would be a location out of view of the house) and we know he called her when he was on his way to get his bobcat blade changed (even thought he was just at home, but not really at home), then he texted her on his way back home saying Done, headed home and then the "did you leave" text. She didn't respond. I believe he also tried calling her on this drive home. I think something was going on that day in the afternoon. Barry hurried home from his job site to hike or bike with her and then did neither and actually seemed to be home, but not even near the house. This is my opinion only, but I think Suzanne might have felt something that day. We know she was outside messaging with Jeff, we know Barry had a camera that LE never found. Maybe Barry comes home yelling Suzanne, she hears it and doesn't want to encounter him outside in her bathing suit so she slips in the door and it doesn't even have to be she was afraid, but maybe just uneasy and wanted to get inside and put a shirt or something on. He is getting more upset because she didn't answer the phone or the text and he hears her go in and shut the door so he is really mad now.

This is just a scenario I can see happening. We don't know why she didn't answer his calls or text. We don't know if Jeff and her actually got on WA to video after those messages they sent just after 2pm. Maybe they were on WA when Barry arrived home. Jeff said he didn't think they were on WA based on the messages sent before and after, but I do think it's possible they were on a video chat on WA at that time.

 

[susiQ]

We may never know exactly why, but I think she was sun bathing and messaging with Jeff. We know Barry did odd things that day by going home, but not really going home. He was parked down the driveway (by looking at various photos and google maps it seems that would be a location out of view of the house) and we know he called her when he was on his way to get his bobcat blade changed (even thought he was just at home, but not really at home), then he texted her on his way back home saying Done, headed home and then the "did you leave" text. She didn't respond. I believe he also tried calling her on this drive home. I think something was going on that day in the afternoon. Barry hurried home from his job site to hike or bike with her and then did neither and actually seemed to be home, but not even near the house. This is my opinion only, but I think Suzanne might have felt something that day. We know she was outside messaging with Jeff, we know Barry had a camera that LE never found. Maybe Barry comes home yelling Suzanne, she hears it and doesn't want to encounter him outside in her bathing suit so she slips in the door and it doesn't even have to be she was afraid, but maybe just uneasy and wanted to get inside and put a shirt or something on. He is getting more upset because she didn't answer the phone or the text and he hears her go in and shut the door so he is really mad now.

This is just a scenario I can see happening. We don't know why she didn't answer his calls or text. We don't know if Jeff and her actually got on WA to video after those messages they sent just after 2pm. Maybe they were on WA when Barry arrived home. Jeff said he didn't think they were on WA based on the messages sent before and after, but I do think it's possible they were on a video chat on WA at that time.

I recall Suzanne texted she was switching over to WA, but at some point (don’t know the time stamp) JL texted “My gang is home.” I would think communications would end for a while at that point.

 

[FromGermany1]

Good morning Chloe's mom!

But how is it we know this?
From Mrs. Ritter?
Hmm.
Even if Mrs. Ritter did not share the coffee klatch"I'm done!" earthquake with Mr. Ritter - who, if he did get his wife's, "How was your day, dear?" briefing over dinner that evening, may have had a vote in whether his wife ought to have anymore to do with the Morphew Matter for the moment - did she not volunteer this information to LE [was it?] after Suzanne's disappearance?

In these early moments/days, imo, the Ritters may have been trying to extricate themselves from the whole mess and, if so, Mrs. Ritter's assertion that Suzanne did not want her to "come around" warrants further scrutiny. To what end, I cannot be certain Notwithstanding, it may be a fresh/ new/differing piece to this still unfolding 'mosaic of murder' - oops! that's not a Christie title, is it? I think I'm safe.Whew!

# # #​

Thinking abit further - always perilous - if Mrs. Ritter is being truthful, would not there be text evidence of Suzanne's request, and be such at either or both ends of her communication? For, surely, Suzanne would not have strolled over and knocked on the Ritter door to express that she didn't 'want to bothered thank you very much'.
Nah. That never happened.

Afaik, Suzanne had coffee with her neighbour during the last days (forgot the weekday) before her disappearing at Mrs. R's home. Suzanne might have said at that last meeting, her neighbour shouldn't come over for a next coffee during the following days.
I noticed, Barry called Mr. R (and not Mrs. R!!) even twice for going to his home and looking for Suzanne (and the bike). Then Mr. R sent his wife to the Morphew's home, also twice. To me it means, at that point a friendship between Mr. R and BM still existed, they talked from man to man so-to-say. My conclusion from that: Suzanne and Mrs. R shared something (re. marriage/divorce/no coffee because ...), of which the men both didn't know on that Sunday in May. IMO

 

[Megnut]

When JL did not join Suzanne on wa, IMO she moved on, supposing him busy. I imagine that happened on occasion.

I think she left the patio. Wrapped in the brown towel. I think she plugged her phone in, to charge it (for Saturday's regularly planned bike ride). That the charger is missing suggests to me her phone and cord were together, most likely place: bedside.

I'd be curious to know, in data mining, if it's possible to know whether texts sent were texts read. If Suzanne believed JL had moved on to his regularly scheduled busyness, and the girls were camping, and whothehellcareswhereBarryis, she might have had no reason to look at her phone after, say 2:15. Just left it charging.

Showered, dressed, I think it's reasonable to think she tackled her to-do list. Stripped the upstairs bed, started the laundry.

If she heard Barry scream up the driveway in his diesel foghorn, and then saw him circling the house, she may have locked him out, forcing him to race toward other doors or he may have encountered her right there, atop an armful of linens.

If she ran toward the bedroom, it was for a reason.

Instinct/preservation/protection
Phone
Weapon

Barry had all the advantages but he couldn't risk her getting to a phone or being able to defend herself, he needed to get on the other side of the door, period. Time was not on his side.

The scratches confirm for me that he got within arm's distance -- I'm just not certain on which side of the door that was.

JMO

 

[Trebor5591]

I've recently made some posts referring to BM using an Rx dart to incapacitate SM.

For clarification purposes, I think it was a mistake to use the term dart since I think it implies BM used a dart gun to fire the tranquilizer at SM.

I believe the correct description should be Rx needle sheath since that was the actual evidence found inside of the dryer. I think the same would easily fit inside BM's pocket (or even the bedsheet).

Lastly, I never believed a dart gun was involved here and if SM was injected with an anesthetic, it was by BM jabbing SM, and not by the firing of a dart gun.

I apologize for any miscommunication in my earlier posts.

I feel the whole idea of BM injecting SM with some incapacitating drug makes no sense and if the prosecution pursues that theory they will be making a big mistake. If BM felt the need to incapacitate SM with some drug prior to killing her, (and that is a very big if) I feel administration of the drug via a drink or food would be more likely. I don't think its possible that anyone could inject another person with a needle without that persons cooperation, or unless they are tied down and already incapacitated. What would any adult do if suddenly someone tried to inject them with a needle? Fight, jerk away, move, the needle might be even broken off in the skin, a fight would ensue, with things broken, signs of a struggle, etc. The whole idea of BM needing to inject SM with a drug that would likely take 10-15 minutes to work via an intramuscular injection in order to knock her out so he could then kill her via strangulation or drowning in the bathtub just doesn't make any logical sense. MOO.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I feel the whole idea of BM injecting SM with some incapacitating drug makes no sense and if the prosecution pursues that theory they will be making a big mistake. If BM felt the need to incapacitate SM with some drug prior to killing her, (and that is a very big if) I feel administration of the drug via a drink or food would be more likely. I don't think its possible that anyone could inject another person with a needle without that persons cooperation, or unless they are tied down and already incapacitated. What would any adult do if suddenly someone tried to inject them with a needle? Fight, jerk away, move, the needle might be even broken off in the skin, a fight would ensue, with things broken, signs of a struggle, etc. The whole idea of BM needing to inject SM with a drug that would likely take 10-15 minutes to work via an intramuscular injection in order to knock her out so he could then kill her via strangulation or drowning in the bathtub just doesn't make any logical sense. MOO.

I have been leery of that theory also from a logistical point of view. It just seems the entire "syringe" set up for ejecting from a dart gun is different, from how the drugs are added to the dart itself, to how the dart tip/needle is different, to the force it takes to release the drug without a plunger. It looks like you could stab the dart but it looks like it would take some force to create the moment the plastic releases the drug from the thicker dart needle since you don't have a thin needle with a plunger. There is some sort of needle-like device with a plunger you can purchase to fill the darts when I go watch vet videos so I need to better understand the logistics if prosecution is going to proceed with this theory... Logically yes, it does seem like it would have been far simpler to put the drugs in her coffee or into some food being made. I wondered if prosecution would stick with the tranquilizer theory, but it seems by the fact that they planned to call a veterinarian they are going with it. If they do, it seems like defense will show all the actual pieces needed and how it works .. that seems to be their style.

 

[OldCop]

I've long been a fan of Court TV and I can't tell you how many times I've heard a defense attorney (talking head) confirm that they do aim to control everything about their client's public perception (in and outside the courtroom)-- right down to 'how many times they blink!'

There's not been one time that BM and his haven't walked arm-in-arm down the sidewalk into the Judicial building. That waltz is not natural or a coincidence! -- I'd call it 100% defense choreographed.

And probably why I refuse to acknowledge it. MOO

Absolutely!

 

[susiQ]

I think Bare’s jovial entry and relaxed manner in the courtroom stems from his belief that this case will get dismissed, even at the last hour! He’s paying the “best of the best” and he deserves something for his $$. I wonder how jovial he’ll be when the trial begins and he realizes he’s about to be exposed for what he really is for all the world to see. A murderer and a pathological liar. Appearances are everything to him, don’t ya know. Regardless of whether or not the state brings home a conviction, he’ll never be able to walk that back. MOO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I think Bare’s jovial entry and relaxed manner in the courtroom stems from his belief that this case will get dismissed, even at the last hour! He’s paying the “best of the best” and he deserves something for his $$. I wonder how jovial he’ll be when the trial begins and he realizes he’s about to be exposed for what he really is for all the world to see. A murderer and a pathological liar. Appearances are everything to him, don’t ya know. Regardless of whether or not the state brings home a conviction, he’ll never be able to walk that back. MOO

Dismissed means prosecution most likely can regroup because I don’t think the judge would dismiss with prejudice with no body. I can’t imagine him looking forward to round two at the financial cost it would be. I would think that the entire team is fast forwarding to how to win the trial and get an acquittal. But maybe he wants a dismissal?