Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* #106

[Charlot123]

His reasonable concern must have been (because his wife wanted to separate and he knew it very well), that SM on MD didn't drive her bicycle out of sporting motives, but that she could have met a charming rival* in town. All her family had left her even on MD, so SM could have planned a wonderful day for herself as a consolation. That BM didn't speak about this possibility, says it all: He KNEW 100%, that SM wasn't able, to have a nice day somewhere, because she already had been "disposed" of. His task was thouroughly done; publicly he hadn't to worry except about 2 things: a bike accident or a disappearance (or both).

Any (innocent) jealous man would have had other ideas first, I am sure.

* I don't mean JL!

True. He knew that she had an affair but that person was a family man living far away. The Morphews were living in a safe upscale neighborhood. Realistically, abduction should be the last thing to think of. Given that SM was a cancer survivor, an accident was not impossible, but I bet if the wife who is having an affair is not answering the call, the first though would be, she is also dating someone in the neighborhood (and then in his mind, he'd start thinking of who could it be; might even call the person to check on what he was doing if he was suspecting an acquaintance). The logic of thinking and the acts one would take should have been totally different.

 

[GatorFL]

True. He knew that she had an affair but that person was a family man living far away. The Morphews were living in a safe upscale neighborhood. Realistically, abduction should be the last thing to think of. Given that SM was a cancer survivor, an accident was not impossible, but I bet if the wife who is having an affair is not answering the call, the first though would be, she is also dating someone in the neighborhood (and then in his mind, he'd start thinking of who could it be; might even call the person to check on what he was doing if he was suspecting an acquaintance). The logic of thinking and the acts one would take should have been totally different.

Wait, didn't Barry only learn of the affair from the investigators?

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Wait, didn't Barry only learn of the affair from the investigators?

Ha! I don’t think so.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Wait, didn't Barry only learn of the affair from the investigators?

I can't recall if it was ever confirmed one way or the other.

I do remember many of us thought he suspected, but didn't actually know for sure, until after he'd already killed Suzanne, and the investigation ramped up.

 

[MrsWatson]

I can't recall if it was ever confirmed one way or the other.

I do remember many of us thought he suspected, but didn't actually know for sure, until after he'd already killed Suzanne, and the investigation ramped up.

Just because BM said he only learned then, doesn't make it true. We know BM has said lots of things that aren't true.

 

[CGray123]

An offense does not cease to be 'capital' where the death penalty may not be imposed. Since at least the 70's, case law provides it's unaffected by the constitutionality of the DP. And BM's defense did try this argument but Judge Murphy quickly shut it down.

Found Deceased - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* #106

This is actually one of things about this case that I don't have a problem with. He was out of town and unable to call 911, best he could do was the Salida main police phone. Having the neighbors call 911 on his behalf ensured an emergency response in his absence. As somebody who travels for...

www.websleuths.com

ETA: Supreme Court Oral hearing on May 4, 2023 at 9:15 AM

2023SA2 (1 HOUR)
In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Jerrelle Aireine Smith.

Issue: Whether, following the repeal of the death penalty, those charged with class 1 felonies have an absolute right to bail. Whether the court of appeals erred in dismissing Smith’s appeal taking pursuant to section 16-4-204, C.R.S.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Oral_Arguments/Schedules/May%20orals%20docket1.pdf

It appears from the link you provide to the notice of oral argument in the case of Jerrelle Aireine Smith that - as I said - the argument can be made and now has been made, that abolition of the death penalty in Colorado means First Degree Murder defendants have an absolute right to bail because there are no capital offenses in Colorado. The Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause and the link you provide states oral argument is set for May 4, 2023. It appears that the matter has not been decided as you seem to suggest.

Smith primarily relies upon State v. Ameer, a New Mexico case that seems perfectly on point, but is certainly not binding on Colorado.

The prosecutor's brief details the state's argument for keeping the bail exception, for those who are fascinated with such things. As I have said before when this issue was discussed, I tend to agree with the prosecution's arguments for retaining the exception, but the contrary argument is available. Thanks for showing that Smith has availed herself of it. I look forward to the CSC's decision.

 

[GOBliaison]

I wish we could listen in on that phone call between Cahill and IE.

Something smells fishier than a Friday during Lent.

Jmo

Good morning, all!

Now I would bet $$$ to after-Lent donuts that:

(1) sufficient details of this former agent's recent "misrepresentations" offered to departmental investigators re. his at-home service weapon "accidental" discharge had been truffled-out by IE plc; that
(2) the extent of these details were "reviewed" with him by the caller; and finally
(3) it was further "explained" that it would be unethical were this expert witness's recently adjudicated and sanctioned deficiencies re. truth & veracity were not addressed during the morrow's proceedings.
I.e. - in the literal,"id est" sense now - this former agent's posterior was about to be impeached on the record were he to utter in court any syllables unhelpful to the M-Team.
----------------
Add something like the foregoing to a dissed former agent's likely ax-grinding disposition vis-a-vis his former superiors,...

et voilà, mes amis!

^ AIMO ^

​

 

[Cindizzi]

Today is Suzanne Renee Moorman’s Birthday.

She would have celebrated her 52nd year of life.

 

[GOBliaison]

The most jaw dropping stuff is the zoom interview between IE and Cahill

For starters, I have no idea why the defence is interviewing a key witness outside of court or why Cahill agreed to this?

With the greatest respect, if it may be worth consideration, may I offer my most recent hypothesis concerning the IE/Cahill tête-à-tête?
Post #207, supra., refers.

 

[GOBliaison]

Do we know the nature of that activity? Certainly BM could have been manipulating her phone but it could've been a scheduled function. I'm sound asleep when my phone uploads my photos to the Cloud. Very active phone, I'm not touching it.

IE is the queen of misrepresentation, it would seem.

Where is the justice?

At least, and with certitude I console myself, in that next world, however configured...

 

[Cindizzi]

 

[Megnut]

At least, and with certitude I console myself, in that next world, however configured...

True. But I'm holding out for justice in  this world. LWOP for disappearing one's wife.

jmo

 

[Megnut]

Barry couldn't be troubled with reporting Suzanne missing....

But he did take the time to unload a load of unnecessary tools at the hotel before heading home.

How did Barry know he wouldn't be returning in the morning to join his wall crew?

Welp.

 

[10ofRods]

The ability to be transferred to another 911 receiver varies from place to place. I think we have already been through this discussion at length in earlier threads. Anyone with basic first responder training would also know that 911 is not the most appropriate use of that resource. It is interesting that BM staged the bike crash, though - because that raises the emergency level of the call.

It usually works this way: one dials 911 (but is in wrong jurisdiction); 911 operator transfers call to local LE business number, which then transfers again as needed. It takes only about a minute. If this were not the case, it would be chaos in large regions with multiple 911 operations (such as where I live - and in Denver as well).

At any rate, one would think that BM would have at least the Fire Department number in his phone (and they would transfer him to the LE Business Number).

Reporting a missing person can be done in several ways. And it is not the type of 911 emergency that requires immediate assistance (house fires, medical emergencies take precedence). I used to do training for our local 911 operator (it's in the basement of our County Courthouse and covers a fairly wide area - the calls are routinely transferred to the proper agency within that region). There are 911 operators at local police stations, but the calls do not initially go to those stations. If I dial 911 at work, the call goes to a police station that is not the station for where I work. If I dial 911 at home, it goes to the County operator who then locates the nearest aid. Missing persons reporting is not transferred to another 911 desk, but to the business number of the closest PD (and not to the Sheriff).

When I dial 911 at home, iow, the call is triaged. Fire calls go to the Fire Departments 911 operator, not to the County Sheriff and so on.

IMO. Barry deliberately drove outside of his own 911 operation range.

 

[Seattle1]

It appears from the link you provide to the notice of oral argument in the case of Jerrelle Aireine Smith that - as I said - the argument can be made and now has been made, that abolition of the death penalty in Colorado means First Degree Murder defendants have an absolute right to bail because there are no capital offenses in Colorado. The Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause and the link you provide states oral argument is set for May 4, 2023. It appears that the matter has not been decided as you seem to suggest.

Smith primarily relies upon State v. Ameer, a New Mexico case that seems perfectly on point, but is certainly not binding on Colorado.

The prosecutor's brief details the state's argument for keeping the bail exception, for those who are fascinated with such things. As I have said before when this issue was discussed, I tend to agree with the prosecution's arguments for retaining the exception, but the contrary argument is available. Thanks for showing that Smith has availed herself of it. I look forward to the CSC's decision.

Thanks @CGray123 for the link to the 'Show Cause Response' by the prosecutor. It was happenstance I came across the matter up for oral argument!

IMO, the state legislature had every opportunity to amend the Colorado Constitution re. bailable offenses when rescinding the death penalty and chose not to.

I further believe it's a fool's errand to take up the suggestion that the High Court should erase the intent and spirit of the founders where a defendant charged with the most serious felony on the books and/or Murder in the First Degree should not be eligible for bail release except when proof evident and presumption great (that the defendant committed Murder-1) not met.

From the charges, seems to me that the defendant behind the appeal had resources or access to resources to make bail had bail been set for him.

Fortunately, for the safety and welfare of the witnesses and the public, the law worked as intended. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

ETA: Supreme Court Oral hearing on May 4, 2023 at 9:15 AM

2023SA2 (1 HOUR)
In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Jerrelle Aireine Smith.

Issue: Whether, following the repeal of the death penalty, those charged with class 1 felonies have an absolute right to bail. Whether the court of appeals erred in dismissing Smith’s appeal taking pursuant to section 16-4-204, C.R.S.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Oral_Arguments/Schedules/May orals docket1.pdf

Prosecutor's Response to Show Cause re. Did the trial court properly deny bond to the defendant in accordance with this Court’s long-standing precedent? Are the circumstances raised by the defendant sufficiently compelling to depart from over fifty years of established precedent? Does C.R.S. § 16-4-204, which provides for appellate review of the terms and conditions of bond, also authorize appellate review of a court’s decision to deny bail?

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Educational_Resources/2023/SC%20-%20CMU/19%2023SA2%20answer%20brief%20-%20people(1).pdf

 

[Seattle1]

At any rate, one would think that BM would have at least the Fire Department number in his phone (and they would transfer him to the LE Business Number).

^^rsbm

Great post @10ofRods -- I think we also know that in a town the size of Salida (less than 6K), BM enjoyed the perks and privileges of serving on the volunteer fire department where he was actually recruited by the Fire Chief himself. So yes, BM had many numbers! However, the last thing BM would have wanted was to have to explain why SM was left at home alone on Mother's Day -- these guys such as Chief Bertram would have asked (and the least likely to buy his 'work' excuse).

Recalling the concentrated effort by BM to keep his name out of the news where for days he was identified only as "the husband," I've never doubted BM intentionally used his unsuspecting neighbor to first plant the idea of a bike ride, request they do a welfare check, and report SM missing to LE. MOO

Investigators search Salida property in connection with Suzanne Morphew disappearance, Fire Chief remains ‘hopeful’

CHAFFEE COUNTY, Colo. — Investigators searched a Salida property in connection with the disappearance of Chaffee County woman, Suzanne Morphew, the Sheriff’s office said Friday. “…

www.fox21news.com

 

[GatorFL]

The ability to be transferred to another 911 receiver varies from place to place. I think we have already been through this discussion at length in earlier threads. Anyone with basic first responder training would also know that 911 is not the most appropriate use of that resource. It is interesting that BM staged the bike crash, though - because that raises the emergency level of the call.

It usually works this way: one dials 911 (but is in wrong jurisdiction); 911 operator transfers call to local LE business number, which then transfers again as needed. It takes only about a minute. If this were not the case, it would be chaos in large regions with multiple 911 operations (such as where I live - and in Denver as well).

At any rate, one would think that BM would have at least the Fire Department number in his phone (and they would transfer him to the LE Business Number).

Reporting a missing person can be done in several ways. And it is not the type of 911 emergency that requires immediate assistance (house fires, medical emergencies take precedence). I used to do training for our local 911 operator (it's in the basement of our County Courthouse and covers a fairly wide area - the calls are routinely transferred to the proper agency within that region). There are 911 operators at local police stations, but the calls do not initially go to those stations. If I dial 911 at work, the call goes to a police station that is not the station for where I work. If I dial 911 at home, it goes to the County operator who then locates the nearest aid. Missing persons reporting is not transferred to another 911 desk, but to the business number of the closest PD (and not to the Sheriff).

When I dial 911 at home, iow, the call is triaged. Fire calls go to the Fire Departments 911 operator, not to the County Sheriff and so on.

IMO. Barry deliberately drove outside of his own 911 operation range.

BBM Thank your for revising your earlier incorrect statement (SBM, below) about how calling 911 works when you're not where the emergency is located. I also agree with your revised statement that calling 911 would not have been the best use of that resource, especially by Barry, who was a couple hours away. And I will stand by my post that it was appropriate for Barry to ask the neighbor to call 911.

It's not at all logical that the neighbor would be asked to call the police. Barry could have dialed 911 from Denver and they would have transferred him to his local 911 system (guess he wasn't paying attention during firefighter training). He also could have called the business number, since it was not yet an apparent emergency. Or his VERY good friend (also a firefighter?) who lived on the other side of the house and could have gone to investigate the "bike accident" more ably than the elderly neighbor.


IMO.

 

[Knox]

True. But I'm holding out for justice in  this world. LWOP for disappearing one's wife.

jmo

Me too, but I doubt it will ever happen. It seems Barry pulled off the unthinkable, Suzanne will never be found and her husband/daughters don't seem to care about that. They've moved on without her quite nicely.

 

[GOBliaison]

The whole system is justice…a rigorous prosecution and a rigorous defense. Getting upset with IE and others who have reported LS leadership deficiencies is rigor on the system. I appreciate that it is a tough pill to swallow for those that bought the AA including the inadmissible information. I am not one that thinks there will never be charges in the future but am not expecting anything quickly until prosecution can tighten up their case.

{emphasis above supplied for focus}​

With respect, may I offer, "... words related to rigor such as: obligatory, a must, au fait, called-for, comme il faut, and conforming to accepted standards. ["13 Synonyms & Antonyms for DE RIGUEUR - Thesaurus.comthesaurus.comhttps://www.thesaurus.com] (emphasis supplied)

* * *​

With respect, I suggest that attorney Eytan's personal behavior as it has been revealed in this forum has proven to be just that: a deliberate choice of demeanor. I think "rigor" in its "legal" sense is inapposite here.The clear preponderance of Ms. Eytan's performance to date can be described, I've decided, as (1) uncompelled (2) uncalled-for; (3) violative of accepted standards, and (4) foreseeably inimical to obligations owed her client and the judicial system.
As far as I am aware there exists no "privilege" for defense counsel in our system to publicly do and say "whatever" and thereby obfuscate or obstruct the course of justice.