Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #110

[Seattle1]

It's kind of remarkable how the 30MPH/running through walls stuff gets repeated even though the defence never produced any evidence or exhibit for this claim.

Yup. The partial profile DNA from the glove box all over again. Tiring...

 

[Boxer]

Ah yes I remember you saying this now!

Do you still have the analysis?

Did you plot it from the pushpin or is there some underlying data exhibit for this?

On page 129 the phone times are laid out.

To me it looks like the chase ends at the bedroom.

A man runs about 8 minutes a mile or MOO 11 ft per second.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/user.../21CR78/21cr78 Morphew Redacted Affidavit.pdf

 

[mrjitty]

Yup. The partial profile DNA from the glove box all over again. Tiring...

At least there she actually called a witness

sigh

 

[mrjitty]

I wonder why the Judge actually allowed that question from Nielson - what was the factual basis for it

 

[mrjitty]

The other thing I've been thinking about

We don't know how LE got up on the body exactly. Was it a tip? Or was it accidental discovery? So far it seems to be more fortune at this stage - which happens with animal disturbance. Someone finds a skull and it's all on. Assuming no tip then ideally we need a nexus to the offender.

But is this required?

The original case actually did not speculate how BM disposed of the body, only that he had the opportunity.

The states talk of where the body might be apparently reflected information at the time in a different context i.e a motion to dismiss. It never was actually part of their theory of the case.

So while the defence will he hoping to argue it is exculpatory should he be charged, I am not sure you can say that the body actually contradicts the states case. Rather leads they claim they had at the time - but they looked for the body a lot of places!

Also I am not sure the telematics helps the defence. We've seen in other cases that forensically aware crooks create 'crime shadows' when they leave their devices behind.

So it is actually suspicious the lack of activity on the truck and phone between 10pm-3am

 

[Seattle1]

I wonder why the Judge actually allowed that question from Nielson - what was the factual basis for it

Preliminary allows for considerable leeway -- Judge was generous.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Preliminary allows for considerable leeway -- Judge was generous.

Overly generous for the Defense consistently IMO.

 

[nrbc4]

Moo he drove till he found the combination of flat, utility pole access-catwalk and no near buildings (lights.)

Moo he drove till he found the combination of flat, utility pole access-catwalk and no near buildings (lights.)

Sure hope they are checking cameras to see if a certain person was doing drive by's in that area in the last 3 1/2 years. Sad but most footage has probably been deleted at this point.

 

[Megnut]

Do y'all recall the phone interview LScharf did with Barry? Man, is the guy always angry? IIRC, when asked about the beach site dig, didn't Barry say something disparaging about the neighbor, the one who was awakened and looked out? I can't recall his exact words but my impression was along the lines of dotty.

Why'd Barry need to voice an opinion at all?

 

[Megnut]

Sure hope they are checking cameras to see if a certain person was doing drive by's in that area in the last 3 1/2 years. Sad but most footage has probably been deleted at this point.

It is my guilty pleasure to check various points on Google maps to see if he was accidentally and historically captured. As images are updated. The proverbial 'smoke break outside his lover's door' sort of thing. Three years ago.

All eyes on BM.

What you do in the dark....

Jmo

 

[SortaSleuthy]

Nope. Nowhere in the AA or preliminary did the prosecution claim BM was chasing SM at 30 MPH!

That allegation exaggerating the speed BM was moving (OP forgot to add through walls) was one more lie by the defense. And just to be clear, I don't believe a dart gun is involved here but certainly don't need to lie about my opposition's theories to make my case. JMO

ETA: Add link for day 2 of prelim

SALIDA, Colo. (CBS4) - On day two of a preliminary hearing for Barry Morphew, who is accused of killing his wife, Suzanne, much of the morning was spent rehashing Suzanne's relationship with the man investigators have referred to as her lover, Jeff Libler. In the afternoon, prosecutors outlined Barry's and Suzanne's movements in the days surrounding her disappearance.

[..]

Investigators used GPS records and data from his Ford F350 to pinpoint his locations. Grusing showed a map of [h]is cell phone pings around the house stating that they were all over the outside of the house, indicating he was chasing Suzanne while she was still conscious.

[..]

On Tuesday, Morphew's defense team attempted to poke holes in this theory saying it was purely speculation and that the cell phone pings showed Barry going through walls.

"Do you still believe you have evidence that he is most likely chasing Suzanne?" Barry's attorney, Dru Nielson asked.

"Yes," replied Grusing.

"What?" She asked exasperated, "Due to the chipmunk statement?"

"Yes," replied Grusing.

Prosecutors Outline Barry And Suzanne Morphew's Movements On Days Around Her Disappearance

In day two of Barry Morphew's preliminary hearing, prosecutors outlined his movements, and his wife's actions, in the days surrounding her disappearance.

www.cbsnews.com

Of course BM is guilty. But, the State has no PROOF the chipmunk story is FALSE! (I personally have shot chipmunks around the foundation of my house.)

 

[Ontario Mom]

I’ve heard him speak so many times now that when I read it, I hear his voice saying it.

Funny you say that, whenever someone mentions him by name, I hear him saying his own name, lol.
He's just got that kind of voice.

 

[debrat007]

On page 129 the phone times are laid out.

To me it looks like the chase ends at the bedroom.

A man runs about 8 minutes a mile or MOO 11 ft per second.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/21cr78 Morphew Redacted Affidavit.pdf

Was that bedroom door the one with some damage?

 

[scapa]

I think we should add that elephant to Barry’s zoo.

Room-hogging elephants, murderous mountain lions, bull elks stalking out of season, dancing wild turkeys, 85 chipmunks back from the dead -- will no one spare a thought for Chipmunk 86, poor Alvin, fleeing for his life from a BM on his last nerve? Poor lil fella's gonna get crushed in that crowded zoo,

I find many things about this case absolutely repellent, but none more than the belief, seen in Coloradan murders from Frazee to Watts, that any old crap they spout will be absolutely convincing, and even "exculpatory," so long as they spout it loud and long enough.

It's the cruelest extrapolation: I don't care about X / my victim(s), so why should anyone else? I can brazen it out, and all this will pass.

Fortunately for humankind, they're often -- even usually -- wrong.

 

[justtrish]

I think we should add that elephant to Barry’s zoo.

With this addition, there is going to be a massive amount of waste to deal with, but hey this is Barry's specialty right?

 

[EllaMinnowP]

With this addition, there is going to be a massive amount of waste to deal with, but hey this is Barry's specialty right?

His initials, even.

 

[mrjitty]

I've noticed a curiosity, and that is the defence did not exhibit the telematics for before 10am on saturday

Recap - the telematics we have a basically what was exhibited by the defence at the prelim.

Could just be rando but seems odd they did not put in the whole day. One thing is sure - we have never had the full telematics, which may be why they look so odd

 

[Megnut]

With this addition, there is going to be a massive amount of waste to deal with, but hey this is Barry's specialty right?

Well, he certainly knows how to shovel it on.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

It's kind of remarkable how the 30MPH/running through walls stuff gets repeated even though the defence never produced any evidence or exhibit for this claim.

I think that came from the time stamps and the distance between the pinned locations.

Here is an obvious one where IE intentionally sought to deceive the Court.

She claimed in the prelim that the missing 18 miles is because BM went to the spa store on saturday afternoon and that the witnesses back this up.

However this trip is not in the telematics. Indeed it is not possible for the missing mileage to be a trip to the spa store because we have a telematics odometer read when the truck arrives in the driveway at 14:43 and it never leaves the driveway until 3.49am the next day.

IE knows this but never mentions it - but then makes the same claim in her civil suit.

Yet now she claims that Telematics/cellular also proves BM never went to the grave site because the truck was always in the driveway.

go figure.

But to play the antagonist....Barry said he went to the pool and spa store and the owners said he was there. The jury has to decide if the state if right claiming he didn't go or if the store owners are being untruthful. And it is accurate that the telematics show that BM's truck did not go to the gravesite...so prosecution needs to make a jury believe he was there by other means that the jury finds reasonable without doubt. Her claim so far is accurate. It's all going to eventually play out if there is a trial but the burden will always be on the prosecution during a trial.

 

[mrjitty]

I think that came from the time stamps and the distance between the pinned locations.

No the state exhibit shows nothing of the sort.

If the defence wants to introduce time/distance calculations an exhibit from a witness is required.

No evidence exists for this claim. Nielson made it up.

But to play the antagonist....Barry said he went to the pool and spa store and the owners said he was there. The jury has to decide if the state if right claiming he didn't go or if the store owners are being untruthful. And it is accurate that the telematics show that BM's truck did not go to the gravesite...so prosecution needs to make a jury believe he was there by other means that the jury finds reasonable without doubt. Her claim so far is accurate. It's all going to eventually play out if there is a trial but the burden will always be on the prosecution during a trial.

But how can the missing 18miles be from this trip when the trip isn't in the telematics? If he went at all, he went in a different vehicle. IE knows this - she is simply misleading the Court.

Your argument is IE can simply put something she knows is false in front of the court and then it is up to the court to sort it out. That isn't true.

I agree she could still maintain he was still at the Spa shop that day, but she cannot maintain he drove there in the Truck and somehow the 18km and the whole trip went 'poof' and simply not mention that at all.