Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice* #103

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #461
No, Drew killed his wife Lacey in California. Michael killed his third wife (well they were divorced at the time he killed her and he was already married to wife #4) and made it look like an accident. IT was initially ruled an accident. Then his 4th wife went missing, but before that she confided in her pastor that Michael had killed the 3rd wife. Michael was a LE officer at the time and I think they didn't look at him thoroughly enough based on that. He had reasons to do it and he was so cocky. Laughing in the media, talking to media and making light of all of it. It was absolutely gross. His 4th wife has never been found. He then tried to hire a man in prison to kill the prosecutor (that have that recorded)
EDIT: I just saw your last post after posting this. I will leave this information here in case anyone else is interested in the three Petersons. I agree with the point you were making.

The three deaths of wives involving men named Peterson are so easy to confuse! Michael was a writer and Drew was a cop. Just for clarification there are some links below. But in any case, the murderer of Kathleen Savio who was the divorced third wife of Mr. Peterson was indeed one of the cockiest, creepiest that I have ever seen. I vehemently agree with that!

Scott Peterson killed Laci.

Drew Peterson was in LE and killed ex wife Kathleen Savio and has a vanished 4th wife. Also murder for hire of a prison employee. He was definitely known for laughing during interviews. Clips that I have seen really make my skin crawl. I totally agree with your point.

Michael Peterson was a columnist. He was originally convicted and then Alford'd on appeal, I believe.
 
  • #462
It's just so disheartening to read paragraph after paragraph of lies, and know that there are people out there who actually believe him.

Stories changing to match the evidence, flat out lies, exaggerations, and "I don't recalls."

It's stunning.
It is very disheartening. What innocent person asks for immunity? What innocent person tells lie after lie after lie?

But I don’t hear his defenders offer any explanation for all the lies. Even in the Dateline interview where Barry’s sister spoke, his lies were not spoken of.

You don’t need the IQ of Einstein to figure out that his statements are not the statements of an innocent person.

MOO
 
  • #463
EDIT: I just saw your last post after posting this. I will leave this information here in case anyone else is interested in the three Petersons. I agree with the point you were making.

The three deaths of wives involving men named Peterson are so easy to confuse! Michael was a writer and Drew was a cop. Just for clarification there are some links below. But in any case, the murderer of Kathleen Savio who was the divorced third wife of Mr. Peterson was indeed one of the cockiest, creepiest that I have ever seen. I vehemently agree with that!

Scott Peterson killed Laci.

Drew Peterson was in LE and killed ex wife Kathleen Savio and has a vanished 4th wife. Also murder for hire of a prison employee. He was definitely known for laughing during interviews. Clips that I have seen really make my skin crawl. I totally agree with your point.

Michael Peterson was a columnist. He was originally convicted and then Alford'd on appeal, I believe.
Yes! Thank you! I was getting confused!

The show I watched is called Monster in my Family if anyone is interested. It seeks to introduce family members from both sides of different cases to help with healing. So the murders family with the victims family.
 
  • #464
It is very disheartening. What innocent person asks for immunity? What innocent person tells lie after lie after lie?

But I don’t hear his defenders offer any explanation for all the lies. Even in the Dateline interview where Barry’s sister spoke, his lies were not spoken of.

You don’t need the IQ of Einstein to figure out that his statements are not the statements of an innocent person.

MOO
I don’t think Barry’s defenders care about his numerous and outrageous lies because he has been doing it his whole life. The defenders are accustomed to it.
 
  • #465
If Barry had the blade changed on his Bobcat on 5/9 and only used his Bobcat to unhitch the trailer, why were there loose bolts? Why was he messing with the arm/pin?
Do we think Barry was smart enough to render the Bobcat inoperable or at least make it appear mostly inoperable in an attempt to mislead LE? Could Barry have used the Bobcat in a nefarious manner without needing the arm/pin?
 
  • #466
No, Drew killed his wife Lacey in California. Michael killed his third wife (well they were divorced at the time he killed her and he was already married to wife #4) and made it look like an accident. IT was initially ruled an accident. Then his 4th wife went missing, but before that she confided in her pastor that Michael had killed the 3rd wife. Michael was a LE officer at the time and I think they didn't look at him thoroughly enough based on that. He had reasons to do it and he was so cocky. Laughing in the media, talking to media and making light of all of it. It was absolutely gross. His 4th wife has never been found. He then tried to hire a man in prison to kill the prosecutor (that have that recorded)
It was Scott who killed his wife Lacy.
It was Drew who killed two wives.
It was Michael who was charged with killing Kathleen.
 
  • #467
It is very disheartening. What innocent person asks for immunity? What innocent person tells lie after lie after lie?

But I don’t hear his defenders offer any explanation for all the lies. Even in the Dateline interview where Barry’s sister spoke, his lies were not spoken of.

You don’t need the IQ of Einstein to figure out that his statements are not the statements of an innocent person.

MOO
Absolutely. Well said @BeckyF.
I mean, he even lied before he was ‘informed’ that Suzanne was “missing”- when he got the call from the Ritter’s and told them he was at the wall working, and digital evidence proves he was really at the hotel when he got that call.

Why on earth, if he were innocent, would he tell a massive lie about his location when he got the call from the Ritter’s?
IMO, trying to sell his (fake) alibi.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne
 
Last edited:
  • #468
Well either the "abductor" or BM risked being seen dumping the bike there.

So seeing it was dumped there, we have to assume the killer did it.

It was night time so the risk of seeing anyone on that road was near zero - and it is not far from PP
I don’t think we know what time of day the bike was dumped just what time it was found by LE.
 
  • #469
I don’t think Barry’s defenders care about his numerous and outrageous lies because he has been doing it his whole life. The defenders are accustomed to it.
Yes people that know him have made that claim. Some snippets of his conversation seem “normal” some are just far out enough that I can’t imagine it isn’t exaggeration. I was bummed because I had hoped that the trial would have delivered the entire conversation as it is difficult to get the context from what was cherry picked for the AA.
 
  • #470
I agree the absence of Barry's DNA where it would be expected is puzzling. And I don't think it had anything to do with "cleaning" since other DNA is present. If something were "cleaned" other DNA would also be cleaned I would think.

@Momofthreeboys, I apologize if my post is unclear, and I'll try again.

I believed the reminder with a visual that SM's recovered bike, also at the bike repair shop earlier, sufficient an example of why BM's DNA control sample, when compared to the results specifically from the bicycle grips, handlebars, or brakes, for legal purposes, could easily be inconclusive.

For the purpose of the PH, the location of BM's DNA really didn't matter. It's not like BM did not have access to the SM's bike!

The prosecutor only needed to provide evidence the DNA on the bike was a match to BM or that BM could not be excluded.

To be clear, the results at PH certainly did not prohibit a subsequent test of the sample, performed at fewer loci, where results admitted at trial could in fact show BM could not be excluded.

As we all know, DNA is complicated and if one only considers how the DNA testimony at the PH since blew up into all sorts of allegations, I trust my point will be clear. MOO
 
  • #471
Do we think Barry was smart enough to render the Bobcat inoperable or at least make it appear mostly inoperable in an attempt to mislead LE? Could Barry have used the Bobcat in a nefarious manner without needing the arm/pin?
I remember us discussing if it's possible he pulled a SIM card out of the Bobcat and did use it but the data didn't show up on the report pulled because he replaced that SIM. The very last line on the data for the Bobcat was odd and it just said "other" for description. The rest of the report didn't have that not one time. We speculated that maybe that was SIM removal? If the report ran only included what was on the SIM then maybe it didn't have any input after that because the SIM was removed.
 
  • #472
The case was dismissed close enough to trial that Barry now has a possible 6th Amendment defense if and when the prosecution decides to refile. He can claim that the dismissal and refiling is essentially a prosecution-created delay in the case and has violated his right to a speedy trial.
^^rsbm

I disagree and previously provided Colorado case law for the same. I'm not saying he can't make this assertion, just that he will fail. BM's clock has not stopped. MOO
 
  • #473
I remember us discussing if it's possible he pulled a SIM card out of the Bobcat and did use it but the data didn't show up on the report pulled because he replaced that SIM. The very last line on the data for the Bobcat was odd and it just said "other" for description. The rest of the report didn't have that not one time. We speculated that maybe that was SIM removal? If the report ran only included what was on the SIM then maybe it didn't have any input after that because the SIM was removed.
Law enforcement really wanted to connect the bobcat to this crime, as three different cadaver dogs hit on it, with one even trying to lay down on the seat.

That sim information seemed to exclude it though, and they'd obviously analyze any possibility of manipulation (changing SIM cards, etc).

Of course we don't know if anything changed after the AA/prelim, but I'm leaning against it being involved.

It's hard to get past those dog hits, as you're talking about three separate dogs.

So I'm not completely excluding the possibility.
 
  • #474
I don’t think we know what time of day the bike was dumped just what time it was found by LE.
Evidence and logic gives us a pretty good idea.

During that period when Barry's truck doors showed activity/his phone being outside in the driveway, his phone showed the possibility of him traveling towards the bike location. Despite the possibility that the phone was "strafing", the timing alone makes the most sense.

Barry dumped the bike in a location that would delay its discovery, as if it was found before he left for Broomfield, his alibi would have fallen apart.

So it makes no logical sense for him to have dumped it before he absolutely had to.

So he dumps the bike, enters the house, powers down Suzanne's phone, and then leaves, dumping the helmet on that left turn.
 
  • #475
DBM - OP edited her Peterson
 
Last edited:
  • #476
^^rsbm

I disagree and previously provided Colorado case law for the same. I'm not saying he can't make this assertion, just that he will fail. BM's clock has not stopped. MOO
I agree that he'll probably fail in the claim. But part of the reason for that is because the DA cited a need for further investigation as one of the reasons for dismissing the case. So mentioning the future search wasn't irrelevant to the motion to dismiss.
 
  • #477
I bet if we could have a goosy gander at Barry's historical phone records, his digital footprint only 'strafed' in the direction of the bike one time.

The trouble with airplane mode is, ya gotta remember which mode ya got it in when you gotta be mischiefing.

JMO
 
  • #478
IMO, people here can speak their truth, even if it has no basis other than their largely uninformed gut reactions.

But we should not confuse or conflate a person's right to have and express an opinion with the worth of that opinion. Opinions not based on evidence in the AA, statements in the record, and applicable legal principles simply aren't persuasive to rational people. Most such posts contain so many logical fallacies that the founders of what we call Western Civilization would roll eyes. Here's an article that I hope will help people who offer rational, evidence based comments understand that they play an essential role, and also help folks who offer gut reactions that are at best supported by erroneous assumptions understand that they aren't adding much to an understanding of this case.

Thanks to those who persist in reminding us of the evidence and the reasonable inferences from it, when confronted by misleading speculation in service to personal ego.

-------

All Opinions Are Not Equal

By Roanna Carleton-Taylor, Co-Founder of Resisting Hate
02/01/2018 10:39am GMT, Huffpost


“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” - Douglas Adams

2016 and 2017 brought with them a shift in attitudes toward the concept of ‘expertise’ on both sides of the Atlantic. In Britain, Justice Secretary Michael Gove (defending Brexit) publicly announced that ‘people in this country have had enough of experts.’ In America, President Trump dismissed the almost unanimous scientific view of global warming in favour of tweeting his own unscientific views to his Twitter audience.

Increasingly, when the viewpoints of experts are challenged the position is being taken that all people are entitled to have an opinion and that those opinions are equally worthy.

This is only half right. Yes, if we wish to avoid Orwell’s thought crime dystopia, we do not want to enter the murky waters of telling people what they may and may not think, for therein lies fascism. But we must not confuse a person’s right to have an opinion with the worth of that opinion itself.

If I am unwell I go to a doctor and seek his/her opinion on my health. You are welcome to venture an opinion as to why my left ear appears to have stopped working but I am only going to be interested in what you have to say if you have the appropriate qualifications in medicine. The worth of an opinion depends at least in part on the person holding that opinion. The worth of an opinion from somebody with knowledge in an area is greater than the opinion of someone with ignorance in the area.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’’” - Isaac Asimov


The idea of anti-intellectualism has been nurtured by the right-wing press to encourage those who identify as the working class to reject those whom they perceive as elitist. Nigel Farage captured this mood perfectly with his Leave campaign for Brexit. But any argument proposing that education is a privilege is anachronistic. In the modern age of information any one of us has the power to become informed and aware. Farage tried to make a value out of ignorance but missed the point that he was insulting the very working class people he claimed to represent. Ignorance is not about income, class or social status. Being informed is not about the school you went to or whether you have a degree. Ignorance is a choice. If you choose to be ignorant then you cannot expect that ignorance to be held in the same esteem as somebody else’s knowledge.

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Some opinions are based on objective facts. I believe the earth is spherical because all the evidence I have on which to base this opinion points to the fact that the earth is spherical. Some people choose to believe the earth is flat. That’s fine. But believing it does not give that opinion validity. You have the right to believe whatever you choose but that does not mean your opinion is of the same worth as the one based on empirical evidence and scientific study. Popular celebrities often get this one wrong and muddy the waters. I recently came across a quotation widely attributed to actor Brad Pitt stating: “There’s no right, there’s no wrong. There’s only popular opinion.” This, frankly, is balderdash. There are verifiable facts. If you choose not to believe in them, you are wrong. Yes you have the right to be wrong but, frankly, if you choose to disbelieve proven facts you are going to end up looking a bit of a prat.

Some opinions are based on facts that have not yet been verified as true or false. Religion is an excellent example of this. There is a God or there isn’t. But we don’t know beyond all doubt which of these two states is the case. And until we do know then we cannot say that either the opinion of an atheist or of a person of faith is any more or less valid than the other.

“Everyone has the right to an opinion. No one has the right to be listened to.” - Cyril Connelly.

It follows from the idea that not all opinions are of equal worth that not all opinions deserve an equal platform. I discussed this concept in a previous article where I explained that free speech is the right to speak, not to be heard.

I am becoming increasingly tired of hearing that the views of people who have made no effort to inform themselves are worth listening to. Politically this viewpoint has become nothing but a sop to those who cannot be bothered to get off their sofas and educate themselves. It is an implied responsibility of airing an opinion that you make it an informed one. If you are not willing to do this then it is not undemocratic for others to discount the views you bring to the table.

“Ignorance is the world’s most curable affliction.” Jeri Smith-Ready

We are in danger of becoming a society where we are incapable of differentiating between the ignorant and the informed.
When we deride our experts and give ignorance a pedestal we turn our backs on all the progress we have made as humans. We must not let our very worthy desire not to offend people blind us to the fact that some people do know more than others, some people are more informed than others, some have worked harder to obtain more knowledge than others and, when it comes down to it, some people and some opinions are worth listening to more than others.
 
  • #479
Surprisingly, what seems to be consistently underplayed here is that SM had her bike serviced by the bike shop only a few days earlier-- providing for mixed DNA or other profiles all over her bike, but this idea of BM's DNA not profiled, is somehow weird. JMO

View attachment 351653

I'm not sure I'm getting you. The OP asked about BM's DNA on the bike and I answered about BM's DNA. I did not extrapolate to include other people's DNA on the bike.

I do think it's weird that Barry's DNA is only on the seat. If, as he says, he had wrestled the bike out of her car for her on Saturday, I would expect his DNA elsewhere on the bike. I just think this illustrates another one of BM's lies.

I do think he staged the bike after he killed her and went to some lengths to avoid leaving any extra DNA on the bike. Maybe he wore some kind of disposable chemical/hazmat suit? I don't think it would have been that hard for him to get one.

As far as other people's DNA on the bike goes, there is unknown DNA on the seat, grips, brakes, and handlebars. As she had just had her bike serviced, I expect that it is the bike repair personnel. For the next go-around, hopefully LE has been able to match it to someone at the bike shop.

JMO.
 
  • #480
Don't forget bM also handled the bike after the cops found it. He was specifically told to stop touching the bike by officers at the scene.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
2,548
Total visitors
2,627

Forum statistics

Threads
632,163
Messages
18,622,937
Members
243,041
Latest member
sawyerteam
Back
Top