Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* #109

[10ofRods]

They have got to test DNA in and around the scene. We're not talking about every surface in a home. I strongly disagree with you here. If they had the forethought to collect it - and they found DNA on it, they have to test it. Sorry. jmo

This case was dismissed precisely because they didn't test it and of that tested, they didn't turn it over - and I think they didn't turn it over bc after getting a horror hit, they wanted a see no evil, hear no evil, stance. But, that ship has sailed. They have been warned. Not sure if you practice but I don't think it's a good idea to go into court and arm a defendant with ammunition of 20 or so other unknown sources of DNA in or around the scene. Because this is what you will have to do. It's no different from the rule of "Don't ask a question you don't already know the answer to." They need to be prepared, to even draw the sting in their opening, if necessary. They need to have some sort of response.

This is slightly different than Idaho imo in that in Idaho, they've been openly battling about some (3) unknown sources of DNA for some time now with the court being fully read-in on it.

jmo

Test it to do what with it?

Truly curious. I'm trying to imagine testing all the DNA that was found in the Idaho Massacre home at 1122 King in Moscow, ID (the Kohberger case). Or testing all the DNA that would be found at Puma Path. What is the point of that? What do they do with it after they test it?

Are people really expecting every single person that's ever been at a locale to be inspected and matched to DNA found at that locale? And if not everyone can be located (most won't be without IGG), what then? What is the point?

I'm not getting it at all. Even partial DNA? That could be a composite of several people?

Maybe people don't realize that you could probably eventually find 1000 potential donors of that partial DNA - with about 1-3 years of work by a team of Ph.D.'s with great medical equipment. We don't even have enough of those to provide top notch medical care to every citizen. It wouldn't stop with murder trials - it would be all major crimes. Would we let all the suspects out while this got done or keep potentially innocent people in jail while we testing all this? Crime investigations would routinely take YEARS longer (until we get a complete database of every human's DNA, which doesn't seem to be happening very quickly). Partial DNA can point to a pile of traits, but not to an identity of a person. It's like saying "oh, there are fingerprints, let's go look at ALL people's fingerprints until we find the match." Everyone has to march down to the fingerprint place, everyone has full sets taken and stored.

Except that fingerprints are easier to match. What a cumbersome system. There has to be other evidence that a person is involved a crime. DNA alone is not enough.

Do people not realize that their OWN DNA is in most places they've ever been? And that it persists for centuries? Sure, it can be degraded with chemicals, but most surfaces do not have those chemicals applied and even then, you would get PARTIAL DNA again! The little A, C, T and G pairs might survive bleach or hydrogen peroxide (just scrambled a bit - IOW, PARTIAL DNA again).

What investigation into stranger DNA in Idaho? I think I must be missing your point and am truly sorry. I am very familiar with the Kohberger case and wish there was an "open battle." There isn't. There may be. But it was a FULL MATCH. All 23 pairs of chromosomes present and accounted for. How is that anything like this case?

Bryan Kohberger's cheek swab 100% matched the DNA found on the knife sheath (of which there was enough to get more than one sample - although there wasn't a heck of a lot of it, it only takes one set of chromosomes - which was present on more than one swab of the use point of the sheath).

 

[Love Never Fails]

That he had already communicated on the 7th that he planned to work on the wall the week of the 11th could mean either.

It could have been that he planned to use the absence of the daughters to get rid of Suzanne - who was increasingly making it clear she wanted out of the marriage - and so called about the job the day after the girls left to get his alibi lined up in advance of taking action. OR, he could have set up the job absent any intent relative to SM and then flew into a rage when SM was communicating with her lover and ignoring his calls and at that point decided the job would serve as his alibi.

IIRC, he didn't talk to his employee MG about the job when they were working together Saturday,May 9 which seems odd if he'd already arranged the work on May 7th. The first she heard of it being imminent was when he called her early Sunday morning, May 10 while he was on the way to Broomfield (AFTER he'd mentioned to JP - when he saw him at the garage/shop where he went to get his bobcat blade repaired on Saturday - that he wanted him to work for him the first time ever the next week).

Why get JP - who'd never worked for BM before - lined up before he made arrangements with MG who was RIGHT THERE working with him on Saturday? If he was lining up his alibi in advance, you'd think he could have mentioned it to MG rather than calling her (a mother) early on Mother's Day morning to tell her he needed her out of town that evening.

For some reason he didn't want MG to know too early. Was he afraid she'd share that info with someone before Sunday?
And he didn't bring the bobcat for a job that clearly needed one. Had he planned to bring the bobcat when discussing the job with the Indiana contractor on Thursday, May 7? MG was using the bobcat at the riverfront job site on Saturday, May 9. Was BM afraid MG would notice something different about it if she saw it on Sunday, May 10?

Lots of questions around oddities.

Good recollection and good questions. All of which I bet LE asked him about, at one time or another.

 

[justtrish]

They have got to test DNA in and around the scene. We're not talking about every surface in a home. I strongly disagree with you here. If they had the forethought to collect it - and they found DNA on it, they have to test it. Sorry. jmo

This case was dismissed precisely because they didn't test it and of that tested, they didn't turn it over - and I think they didn't turn it over bc after getting a horror hit, they wanted a see no evil, hear no evil, stance. But, that ship has sailed. They have been warned. Not sure if you practice but I don't think it's a good idea to go into court and arm a defendant with ammunition of 20 or so other unknown sources of DNA in or around the scene. Because this is what you will have to do. It's no different from the rule of "Don't ask a question you don't already know the answer to." They need to be prepared, to even draw the sting in their opening, if necessary. They need to have some sort of response.

This is slightly different than Idaho imo in that in Idaho, they've been openly battling about some (3) unknown sources of DNA (which were properly disclosed) for some time now with the court being fully read-in on it.

jmo

My point though was we ALL have random unknown DNA in our homes for very innocent reasons and most of that will never be able to be ID'd to anyone in the event we go missing and they start swabbing and testing the house. What was the state supposed to do with all those if they didn't match anyone? If none of those random DNA hits even match each other, then it isn't even one person it's many and there is no way many intruders came in there and started going through the house and just left it in the same pristine condition Suzanne had it. I guess I just don't understand how any of those DNA hits match up to this could be the person that took Suzanne. The way the defense would present it though would be the state is allowing all these random intruders that left DNA to roam around to harm others while they focus on Barry and I don't think that is accurate either.

 

[lonetraveler]

That’s an interesting thought. Who do you think would do that and why?

Barry might have wanted to move her for either of two reasons; ie., didn't want her found on his route to the workplace or he needed her found for insurance purposes. Who knows? I just think she would have been found earlier if she had been in this place the entire time. JMO

 

[NCHydrangea]

No work allowed on Saturdays or Sundays without prior permission from the Engineer.

Typically a concession may be made in the event of an emergency, not a Contractor’s emergency, but something that may pose a safety issue with the Public.
https://legacy.rockymountainbidsyst...?SDIR=115361&1-GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES.pdf

 

[Bbgiraffe]

If he left "so early" in the morning while "she was still in bed" how would he know what outfit she put on that day - unless he was there at some point. Caught in another slip up or lie? Was this what she was wearing on Saturday? If so, that would seem a slip up to me for sure.

jmo

He says she was still in bed when he left on Sunday, so wouldn't he assume she had on her sleepwear? This has always stuck out to me as one of Barry's many missteps.

 

[Megnut]

This was the early days at the beginning of Covid, but ordering materials on the weekend for delivery on Monday would have been a no go. Especially for a job as small as that wall. I also seem to recall Morgan saying that she and Jeff were there on Monday, but they had no materials.





Yes. The wall was meant to be a small retaining wall at the bottom of a slope IIRC. My Grandma could have built a better wall with old bricks found on the farm.

Apparently ole Ber Ber didn’t have a permit and I can tell you that the wall would have to be inspected during every phase of the construction. Subgrade, foundation, and anything else required in the Specs and Details. No inspection-no pay.

And yet, ill equipped as they were, Barry's crew attempted to do the work. Out there with basically a fork and a igloo cube, trying to satisfy the boss.

Barry didn't deserve the hard-working, decent people who were around him.

JMO

 

[10ofRods]

View attachment 450863Barry's tacky wall.

Bless you! You are amazing. I looked and looked for that!

Saving it this time.

It makes me smile. I take back what I said about it not "retaining" anything. It clearly is near where it should be - but the new one is quite different, decorative and has artistic design of some sort.

 

[justtrish]

View attachment 450863Barry's tacky wall.

Wait THIS is the wall he needed to work on?

Not sure what I was expecting, but THIS definitely isn't what I had in mind.

 

[Love Never Fails]

It is unusual! I'd say it's almost providential! And I wasn't following the civil case too closely either - am very grateful to others here for getting me up to speed this week.

A question. At this stage and knowing Suzanne’s body was found, would it be beneficial for either IE or Chaffee County and other defendants to ask for a dismissal of the civil case? On the other hand, would it be beneficial for either side to press for the case to go forward? Or does either side have a choice?
Gosh, IE has to be sweating this, all while trying to keep her client calm.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Barry might have wanted to move her for either of two reasons; ie., didn't want her found on his route to the workplace or he needed her found for insurance purposes. Who knows? I just think she would have been found earlier if she had been in this place the entire time. JMO

Gosh this brings up an interesting question. A person has to be declared dead to collect on life insurance. Now that Suzanne has been found, and BM hasn’t been charged, can he collect that to pay IE’s fee for a new trial? That would be something!
I would think answering any questions in s civil suit could be damaging to him and he might have to repay said insurance company one hundred percent. But if he let his daughters collect said insurance, could they then pay Iris to defend him?

 

[Seattle1]

Interesting time for them to file a motion to dismiss, no?

Maybe interesting isn’t necessarily the word I’m looking for. Funny almost.

The timing of having to respond to BM's Civil Complaint and SM's remains being recovered last week is purely coincidental since the judicial clock started ticking here as soon as the defendants were served, and the Court ultimately Ordered a response date for all the defendants on October 13, 2023.

At this time, each defendant only has two choices on how to respond:

1) Each either has to file a written Answer admitting, denying, or stating there's not enough information to admit or deny each specific claim (1-13); or

2) If the defendant believes that no law was broken, and therefore no basis for each specific claim (1-13), or if the court does not have jurisdiction over the defendant or the claims, then the Defendant will file a written Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

Once the Defendant's response is filed and served on the Plaintiff, it starts the judicial clock once again for the Plaintiff who has to timely respond to both the Motions to Dismiss, the Defendants Answers, and/or file an Amended Complaint.

Under the new law banning qualified immunity, I've been uncertain how 26 agencies would counsel their employees on how to respond but Individually, I suspected the defendants would go straight up with Motions for Dismissal. Personally, being somewhat familiar with the history of this case, I found IE's manipulation of the details very insulting. JMO

ETA: For clarification, I should add that BM's Civil Complaint is 185 pgs and alleges 13 specific claims for relief at $15M.

 

[Observer33]

I don't see BM introducing her to mt biking either. I don't recall reading anything about that aspect, except that I simply don't see it. He still might have been familiar with her route or routes though. If she did solo rides then it is always wise to let someone know where you will be riding. It's not like road biking where a motorist might offer assistance. If out on a solo ride she might have told him in the past.

I've often wondered if she had some regular riding partners and, if so, what info did they give to LE that might have shed light on the alleged bike ride. Of course, this was in the midst of the Covid crisis when some my fellow cyclist chose to ride solo instead of the usual groups.

He probably tracked her location via her phone.

 

[Love Never Fails]

He says she was still in bed when he left on Sunday, so wouldn't he assume she had on her sleepwear? This has always stuck out to me as one of Barry's many missteps.

IIRc, this brings up Barry’s many lies. At one point he says something about her wearing a white top to bed (I think with shorts). Another time I believe he said she slept naked. Anyone remember?

 

[Observer33]

Gosh this brings up an interesting question. A person has to be declared dead to collect on life insurance. Now that Suzanne has been found, and BM hasn’t been charged, can he collect that to pay IE’s fee for a new trial? That would be something!
I would think answering any questions in s civil suit could be damaging to him and he might have to repay said insurance company one hundred percent. But if he let his daughters collect said insurance, could they then pay Iris to defend him?

I doubt she had much life insurance. Cancer would have to be disclosed on any policy of any significant value. If they didn't disclose, they would reject the claim and not pay the death benefit.

 

[Love Never Fails]

The timing of having to respond to BM's Civil Complaint and SM's remains being recovered last week is purely coincidental since the judicial clock started ticking here as soon as the defendants were served, and the Court ultimately Ordered a response date for all the defendants on October 13, 2023.

At this time, each defendant only has two choices on how to respond:

1) Each either has to file a written Answer admitting, denying, or stating there's not enough information to admit or deny each specific claim (1-13); or

2) If the defendant believes that no law was broken, and therefore no basis for each specific claim (1-13), or if the court does not have jurisdiction over the defendant or the claims, then the Defendant will file a written Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

Once the Defendant's response is filed and served on the Plaintiff, it starts the judicial clock once again for the Plaintiff who has to timely respond to both the Motions to Dismiss, the Defendants Answers, and/or file an Amended Complaint.

Under the new law banning qualified immunity, I've been uncertain how 26 agencies would counsel their employees on how to respond but Individually, I suspected the defendants would go straight up with Motions for Dismissal. Personally, being somewhat familiar with the history of this case, I found IE's manipulation of the details very insulting. JMO

Thank you! Can you explain what is considered qualified immunity?

 

[Love Never Fails]

I doubt she had much life insurance. Cancer would have to be disclosed on any policy of any significant value. If they didn't disclose, they would reject the claim and not pay the death benefit.

True but having beat the first cancer at a young age I would think an insurance would cover her back then for a price of course and he may have kept paying thinking she wouldn’t live a long time. I doubt if said insurance company could cancel after second cancer as long as premiums were paid. But I don’t know.

 

[Love Never Fails]

The timing of having to respond to BM's Civil Complaint and SM's remains being recovered last week is purely coincidental since the judicial clock started ticking here as soon as the defendants were served, and the Court ultimately Ordered a response date for all the defendants on October 13, 2023.

At this time, each defendant only has two choices on how to respond:

1) Each either has to file a written Answer admitting, denying, or stating there's not enough information to admit or deny each specific claim (1-13); or

2) If the defendant believes that no law was broken, and therefore no basis for each specific claim (1-13), or if the court does not have jurisdiction over the defendant or the claims, then the Defendant will file a written Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

Once the Defendant's response is filed and served on the Plaintiff, it starts the judicial clock once again for the Plaintiff who has to timely respond to both the Motions to Dismiss, the Defendants Answers, and/or file an Amended Complaint.

Under the new law banning qualified immunity, I've been uncertain how 26 agencies would counsel their employees on how to respond but Individually, I suspected the defendants would go straight up with Motions for Dismissal. Personally, being somewhat familiar with the history of this case, I found IE's manipulation of the details very insulting. JMO

Another question, could IE file a motion to dismiss at this time or would she (BM) be made to pay all attorneys fees?

 

[Observer33]

You think she was in the home until he moved her, and then proceeded to stage the scene with her bike?

jmo

I think she left the home disabled but alive. He put her in a landscape bag and cooler to transport. He finished her off at the burial site. Staging occurred after she was dead.

 

[Boxer]

Actually, the job was scheduled at the customer’s insistence the prior mid-week to start on Monday. Barry moved the travel to Sunday (paraphrased) “so the team could get an early start on Monday and so I could take measurements and order materials Sunday.”

Of course, we all know the REAL reason he moved it to Monday.

Thanks, there was a plan but with changes. I found it very hard to pin down in the PCA.