Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #115
- Thread starter Mysti88c
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2020
- Messages
- 3,539
- Reaction score
- 57,245
Fotis Dulos (charged with abducting and murdering his estranged wife, Jennifer, in Connecticut) was a malignant narcissist, IMO. When it was clear Fotis was going back to jail (when the fraudulent valuation of real property behind his bail was exposed), he sat inside his vehicle inside his garage with his vehicle running after running a hose from his tailpipe to his vehicle window. When he didn’t show up for his bail hearing that morning, officers arrived at his home and pulled him out and were able to revive him, but he never regained consciousness and died a few days later when taken off the machines that were keeping him alive.
Fotis had written a final note claiming his innocence and demanding that the state not prosecute his fellow conspirators in the crime as “they had nothing to do with it.” One of those conspirators was tried and found guilty and the other is still due to be tried.
When the facades that narcissists have spent their entire lives building to mask their malignant natures are finally taken down, some of them will indeed commit suicide rather than live exposed as who they really are and faced with the legal consequences of their criminal acts.
I agree.
Malignant narcissist. There’s a term that most definitely describes BM.
And Fotis. I still wonder if Fotis intended to make a suicide attempt, to manipulate people.
But his timing was off. Too bad, so sad. Not. Though I would have preferred seeing him in prison.
I could see BM doing the same, making an attempt in order to manipulate, to garner more sympathy, to try to control his circumstance.
Because he’s a malignant narcissist to his core.
I don't see disrespect for the court in the motion for extension, which is unopposed and which clearly respects and follows the court's stringent rule for extension requests:
Rule 27.1 D. Requirements. The motion must establish that it will not be
possible to file the brief on time, even if the party exercises due
diligence and gives priority to preparing the brief.
(1) All factual statements must be set forth with specificity.
(2) Generalities—such as assertions that the purpose of the
motion is not for delay and that counsel is too busy—are
not sufficient.
(3) If the reason for the extension is that the transcript is not
available, the motion must show that the transcript was
timely ordered and paid for, or must explain why not.
(E) Reasons. Reasons that may merit consideration are that:
(1) other litigation presents a scheduling conflict, in which
case the motion must:
(a) identify the litigation by caption, number, and court;
(b) describe the action taken in the other litigation on a
request for continuance or deferment;
(c) state reasons why the other litigation should receive
priority over the case in which the motion is filed;
(d) state reasons why other associated counsel cannot
prepare the brief for timely filing or relieve movant’s
counsel of the other litigation; and
(e) recite any other relevant circumstances;
(2) the case is so complex that an adequate brief cannot
reasonably be prepared by the due date, in which case the
motion must state facts demonstrating the complexity; and
(3) counsel will suffer extreme hardship, in which case the
motion must state the nature of the hardship.
Both Morphew's appellate counsel are currently involved in criminal trials that demand their full attention, and that is the primary justification for the request. It would be sufficient by itself, and the fact that the state's trial lawyers do not oppose the motion is sufficient evidence that they understand the demands on an attorney in trial. It seems clear enough that Morphew's attorneys are respectfully following the rules of court, and that they have legitimate reasons for requesting an extension.
It should go without saying that they owe their client duties of loyalty, diligence, and zealous representation that they could not meet without the extension. They cannot win their appeal without a court decision that upends decades of precedent, but hey - we have a Supreme Court that has shown no respect for precedent in recent years, so maybe they have reason for hope.
If the Court feels disrespected, it can always reject the motion. But it won't, because there is no disrespect at all. Or did you mean to say that you have no respect for the court?
I'm not sure what the factual basis is for your statement that Eytan "screwed them over". There was never an expectation that she would participate in an appeal. She isn't even registered to practice in the 10th Circuit. Appellate law is not part of her practice: for that, she affiliates with firms with appellate advocacy experience, like Fisher & Byrialsen and Rathod Mohamedbhai.
Hating on Morphew's attorneys for doing their jobs may be satisfying for haters, but maybe we could al least focus on the facts and not make things up?
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 32,140
- Reaction score
- 57,543
Websleuths will be off-line temporarily on Friday, Feb. 14th. For more info CLICK HERE
Cassady
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2020
- Messages
- 342
- Reaction score
- 4,205
100%
It seems that it is open season on BM's attorneys. Accusing them of ethical violations, sleeping with their client, and other nefarious things that have no bases in reality...IMO They only thing BM's attorneys have done is their job!
The only attorney who has been ruled to have behaved unethical in this case is the former DA. Her unethical behavior in this case and others, lead to her disbarment, which is a very serious step to take against a lawyer, especially a sitting DA.
The plaintiff's in the civil trial face an uphill battle with the appeal. Perhaps they get to amend and re-file, but that too will be subject to summary judgment and other motions attacking the case.
IMO neither the pending appeal nor the potential re-file of the complaint in the civil case would have any impact at this time on the DA when deciding whether to recharge BM. In fact, new criminal charges could lead to a pause in the civil case, or further strenghten the arguments of the civil defendants.
If the DA has enough evidence to get a conviction against BM, they will re-file charges....IMO
The fact that the case has not been re-filed means the DA is still looking for more evidence for the case against BM. Like something that ties him to the burial site...IMO.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2018
- Messages
- 29,581
- Reaction score
- 695,646
They have her body containing the very chemical compound the original case was predicated upon.
A substance that almost certainly has never been found inside another murder victim in history.
They know the time window the disposal was done, and the site is well within the radius they developed.
Sorry, in no universe is the prosecution of this murder hinging upon some sort of irrefutable evidence that puts him at the dump site.
Plenty of cases do not have that.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 45,177
- Reaction score
- 463,612
Bumping for those that missed the facts where the Court docket speaks for itself. And yes, IE was not only unethical but showed blatant disrespect for both the Court and her Colleagues. MOO
10th Circuit Rule 46.2, which states:
All attorneys, not previously admitted to the bar of this court, immediately upon filing a
case or entering an appearance in a case in this Court, shall obtain from the clerk the
necessary forms for admission upon written motion and shall promptly execute and return them.
Append for additions from MEDIA ONLY for ease of reference.
10/25/24 -- Without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, IE knowingly appealed the final judgement (USDC-Denver) entered on Sept 24, 2024 (Docs Nos 161, and 162).
11/08/24 -- Per 10th Cir. R. 46.1(A) and (D), IE knowingly filed an entry of appearance and certificate of interested party without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
11/12/24 -- IE was Noticed for Admissions per 10th Cir. R. 46.2, response set to 12/12/24. (First Notice).
Record reflects IE ignored the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, Admission Notices while continuing to practice in violation of 10th Cir. R. 46.2 until a Motion filed by Appellant BM for attorney IE to withdraw as counsel was filed on 1/15/2025. (Doc 53).
12/4/24-- IE knowingly filed 'Motion to Stay Appeal Pending District Court’s Ruling on a Motion for Indicative Ruling' (Doc 40), without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
12/9/24 -- IE knowingly filed 'Motion to Stay Appeal Pending District Court’s Ruling on a Motion for Indicative Ruling' (Doc 42), without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
12/16/24 -- Attorney admission letter, second notice sent. Attorney admission response date set to12/26/2024 for Iris Eytan. [24-1424] [Entered: 12/16/2024 10:42 AM]
12/20/24--IE knowingly responded to Defendants-Appellees’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Appeal Pending District Court’s Ruling on a Motion for Indicative Ruling (Doc 47), without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
1/2/25-- Attorney admission letter, third notice sent. Attorney admission response date set to 01/13/2025 for Iris Eytan. [24-1424] [Entered: 01/02/2025 11:41 AM]
1/15/25-- Order filed by Clerk of the Court granting appellant's attorney motion to withdraw as attorney. Appellant Morphew continues to be represented by attorneys Fisher, Fisher-Byrialsen, and Whitson. Served on 01/15/2025. Text only entry - no attachment. [24-1424]--[Edited 01/15/2025 by LG to correct typos] [Entered: 01/15/2025 11:32 AM]
10th Circuit Rule 46.2, which states:
All attorneys, not previously admitted to the bar of this court, immediately upon filing a
case or entering an appearance in a case in this Court, shall obtain from the clerk the
necessary forms for admission upon written motion and shall promptly execute and return them.
Append for additions from MEDIA ONLY for ease of reference.
10/25/24 -- Without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, IE knowingly appealed the final judgement (USDC-Denver) entered on Sept 24, 2024 (Docs Nos 161, and 162).
11/08/24 -- Per 10th Cir. R. 46.1(A) and (D), IE knowingly filed an entry of appearance and certificate of interested party without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
11/12/24 -- IE was Noticed for Admissions per 10th Cir. R. 46.2, response set to 12/12/24. (First Notice).
Record reflects IE ignored the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, Admission Notices while continuing to practice in violation of 10th Cir. R. 46.2 until a Motion filed by Appellant BM for attorney IE to withdraw as counsel was filed on 1/15/2025. (Doc 53).
12/4/24-- IE knowingly filed 'Motion to Stay Appeal Pending District Court’s Ruling on a Motion for Indicative Ruling' (Doc 40), without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
12/9/24 -- IE knowingly filed 'Motion to Stay Appeal Pending District Court’s Ruling on a Motion for Indicative Ruling' (Doc 42), without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
12/16/24 -- Attorney admission letter, second notice sent. Attorney admission response date set to12/26/2024 for Iris Eytan. [24-1424] [Entered: 12/16/2024 10:42 AM]
12/20/24--IE knowingly responded to Defendants-Appellees’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Appeal Pending District Court’s Ruling on a Motion for Indicative Ruling (Doc 47), without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
1/2/25-- Attorney admission letter, third notice sent. Attorney admission response date set to 01/13/2025 for Iris Eytan. [24-1424] [Entered: 01/02/2025 11:41 AM]
1/15/25-- Order filed by Clerk of the Court granting appellant's attorney motion to withdraw as attorney. Appellant Morphew continues to be represented by attorneys Fisher, Fisher-Byrialsen, and Whitson. Served on 01/15/2025. Text only entry - no attachment. [24-1424]--[Edited 01/15/2025 by LG to correct typos] [Entered: 01/15/2025 11:32 AM]
Last edited:
Bumping up my reply to your libelous accusation against Eytan.
Many of us have hated on the judges of the 11th Judicial District, who have dismissed cases over discovery violations. It seems to me those posts reflect inadequate appreciation for the rule of law in general, and especially the Constitutional priority given to due process in criminal proceedings. If we are to remain a free people, we need to learn that it's not OK to support prosecutorial misconduct and abuse the judges with whom we may disagree. In case anyone thinks the judges of the 11th Judicial District are exceptionally strict in this regard, the article linked below describes the same sanction (dismissal) imposed in the Second District.
MOO
--------
Two criminal cases dismissed in Denver because of evidence violations
Officials did not confirm which cases were dismissed and what discovery rules were violated
By LAUREN PENINGTON | [email protected], for The Denver Post
UPDATED: February 10, 2025 at 6:10 PM MST
Less than a month after Denver’s new district attorney took office, two of its criminal cases were dismissed for evidence violations, court officials confirmed Monday.
Matt Jablow, a spokesman for the Denver District Attorney’s Office, did not say which two cases were dismissed or what specific discovery rules were violated.
Jablow said no such records existed for either case, an indication that the cases likely were sealed.
“Because our office takes our discovery obligations with the utmost seriousness, I was deeply concerned by last week’s rulings,” District Attorney John Walsh said in an emailed statement to The Denver Post. “We are actively working to address the concerns raised by the judges in those cases to ensure we comply at all times with the rules and regulations related to disclosure of evidence and information.”
Walsh, who was elected in November and took office on Jan. 14, did not elaborate on what concerns the judges raised.
According to an educational blog post from Masterson Hall, a group of Denver-based criminal defense attorneys, discovery violations are “serious breaches that can compromise the fairness of legal proceedings” and often involve withholding evidence or disclosing it late, such as right before a trial begins.
In Colorado, prosecutors are required to disclose all relevant evidence to the defense, including witness statements, police reports, and expert evaluations, according to the law group.
“Discovery violations can undermine the integrity of the judicial process, potentially leading to wrongful convictions or unfair trials,” the law group’s post states. “When a prosecutor withholds evidence or fails to provide timely disclosures, the defense is left at a disadvantage, unable to adequately prepare for trial. This breach not only impacts the defendant’s right to a fair trial but also erodes public confidence in the criminal justice system.”
MOO
--------
Two criminal cases dismissed in Denver because of evidence violations
Officials did not confirm which cases were dismissed and what discovery rules were violated
By LAUREN PENINGTON | [email protected], for The Denver Post
UPDATED: February 10, 2025 at 6:10 PM MST
Less than a month after Denver’s new district attorney took office, two of its criminal cases were dismissed for evidence violations, court officials confirmed Monday.
Matt Jablow, a spokesman for the Denver District Attorney’s Office, did not say which two cases were dismissed or what specific discovery rules were violated.
Jablow said no such records existed for either case, an indication that the cases likely were sealed.
“Because our office takes our discovery obligations with the utmost seriousness, I was deeply concerned by last week’s rulings,” District Attorney John Walsh said in an emailed statement to The Denver Post. “We are actively working to address the concerns raised by the judges in those cases to ensure we comply at all times with the rules and regulations related to disclosure of evidence and information.”
Walsh, who was elected in November and took office on Jan. 14, did not elaborate on what concerns the judges raised.
According to an educational blog post from Masterson Hall, a group of Denver-based criminal defense attorneys, discovery violations are “serious breaches that can compromise the fairness of legal proceedings” and often involve withholding evidence or disclosing it late, such as right before a trial begins.
In Colorado, prosecutors are required to disclose all relevant evidence to the defense, including witness statements, police reports, and expert evaluations, according to the law group.
“Discovery violations can undermine the integrity of the judicial process, potentially leading to wrongful convictions or unfair trials,” the law group’s post states. “When a prosecutor withholds evidence or fails to provide timely disclosures, the defense is left at a disadvantage, unable to adequately prepare for trial. This breach not only impacts the defendant’s right to a fair trial but also erodes public confidence in the criminal justice system.”
Your assumption that Eytan "knowingly" and entered an appearance in the 10th Circuit has no factual basis. Clearly, F&B prepared and signed the notice of appeal, and a staffer cut and pasted the signature block from a district court document. Again, appellate work is not part of Eytan's practice.Bumping for those that missed the facts where the Court docket speaks for itself. And yes, IE was not only unethical but showed blatant disrespect for both the Court and her Colleagues. MOO
10th Circuit Rule 46.2, which states:
All attorneys, not previously admitted to the bar of this court, immediately upon filing a
case or entering an appearance in a case in this Court, shall obtain from the clerk the
necessary forms for admission upon written motion and shall promptly execute and return them.
Append for additions from MEDIA ONLY for ease of reference.
10/25/24 -- Without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, IE knowingly appealed the final judgement (USDC-Denver) entered on Sept 24, 2024 (Docs Nos 161, and 162).
11/08/24 -- Per 10th Cir. R. 46.1(A) and (D), IE knowingly filed an entry of appearance and certificate of interested party without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
11/12/24 -- IE was Noticed for Admissions per 10th Cir. R. 46.2, response set to 12/12/24. (First Notice).
Record reflects IE ignored the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, Admission Notices while continuing to practice in violation of 10th Cir. R. 46.2 until a Motion filed by Appellant BM for attorney IE to withdraw as counsel was filed on 1/15/2025. (Doc 53).
12/4/24-- IE knowingly filed 'Motion to Stay Appeal Pending District Court’s Ruling on a Motion for Indicative Ruling' (Doc 40), without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
12/9/24 -- IE knowingly filed 'Motion to Stay Appeal Pending District Court’s Ruling on a Motion for Indicative Ruling' (Doc 42), without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
12/16/24 -- Attorney admission letter, second notice sent. Attorney admission response date set to12/26/2024 for Iris Eytan. [24-1424] [Entered: 12/16/2024 10:42 AM]
12/20/24--IE knowingly responded to Defendants-Appellees’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Appeal Pending District Court’s Ruling on a Motion for Indicative Ruling (Doc 47), without admission to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
1/2/25-- Attorney admission letter, third notice sent. Attorney admission response date set to 01/13/2025 for Iris Eytan. [24-1424] [Entered: 01/02/2025 11:41 AM]
1/15/25-- Order filed by Clerk of the Court granting appellant's attorney motion to withdraw as attorney. Appellant Morphew continues to be represented by attorneys Fisher, Fisher-Byrialsen, and Whitson. Served on 01/15/2025. Text only entry - no attachment. [24-1424]--[Edited 01/15/2025 by LG to correct typos] [Entered: 01/15/2025 11:32 AM]
Nor is your claim that every minor mistake is an ethical violation. Attempts to create false equivalence between Linda Stanley's unethical behavior and a minor mistake by F&B are laughable to those of us who actually know the legal and ethical standards and how they are understood and applied. Attempts to undermine the institutions that adjudicate these issues when we disagree have contributed to the current authoritarian culture.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 45,177
- Reaction score
- 463,612
Clearly, the Notice of Appeal, DOC 163, pages 1 AND 2 was signed by each. And more reason not to ignore a direct Notice by the Court (let alone three), if appellate work not part if IE's practice.... Rubbish to blame others!
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2018
- Messages
- 990
- Reaction score
- 23,601
Fully agree MG. Heck if murder convictions are won in cases without a body which we know has happened, and at a higher conviction rate than those with a body, then certainly Colorado’s 12th JD should be able to win a conviction in this case if no evidence ever surfaces/can’t place BM at the burial site.
I mean with all the other damning evidence not least of which imo smoking gun BAM found in remains of SM’s bone, the jurors will consider the totality of the evidence presented at future trial that BM is responsible for the murder of SM and make reasonable, logical deduction/inference that he’s also responsible for getting her body to the burial site somehow.
IMO the jury will be led to that logical conclusion not only by the totality of evidence presented at trial, the prosecution will also emphasize in part of their closing statement which I envision something to the effect:
‘………….and although there’s no evidence placing the defendant at Suzanne’s burial site, we know he had ample time to transport and dispose of Suzanne’s body during a 4.5-5 hour period overnight on May 9-10 when he claimed to be at home asleep. We assert that based on digital forensic evidence of his vehicle and phone, the defendant transported and disposed of Suzanne’s body sometime after he backed up his truck in the driveway the evening of Saturday, May 9th and before activity on his phone started up again in the 3am hour on Sunday, May 10th.
We don’t know what vehicle/mode of transportation he used to get her body there but based on the totality of all the evidence in this case, the only logical conclusion is that after murdering his wife Suzanne, the defendant transported her body to the burial site some way somehow in the 4.5-5 hour period when he claimed to be at home sleeping’…….
and ending the closing statement with:
‘Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, based on all the evidence clearly shows the defendant murdered his wife and disposed of her body, we ask you to find the defendant guilty on all counts. Thank you.’
IMHOO
#JUSTICEFORSUZANNE
ETA-punctuation
Last edited:
Excellent closing!
In the absence of visible movement in the case beyond the civil suit and legalistic side-dramas, it sure is sweet to dream about the wheres and hows and speechifying of a successful prosecution...
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2022
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 3,893
^ CYA POLIT-FOLDEROL IMExperience ^
According to an educational blog post from Masterson Hall, a group of Denver-based criminal defense attorneys, discovery violations are “serious breaches that can compromise the fairness of legal proceedings” and often involve withholding evidence or disclosing it late, such as right before a trial begins.OHHH (i)...and how is "CONTINUANCE" pronounced ?!?
In Colorado, prosecutors are required to disclose all relevant evidence to the defense, including witness statements, police reports, and expert evaluations, according to the law group.
“Discovery violations can undermine the integrity of the judicial process, potentially leading to wrongful convictions or unfair trials,” the law group’s post states. “When a prosecutor withholds evidence or fails to provide timely disclosures, the defense is left at a disadvantage, unable to adequately prepare for trial. This breach not only impacts the defendant’s right to a fair trial but also erodes public confidence in the criminal justice system.”
^ IMCO: TRUMPERY, W/ADR ^
_____________________________________
And so to every WS-er, and all our ships at sea:_____________________________________
"Taps.Taps.The smoking lamp is out.
Maintain silence about all decks.
Now Taps."
Maintain silence about all decks.
Now Taps."
Last edited:
More than one person can be unethical
In my view, it remains clearly unethical for JB, without evidence, to go on a podcast and accuse law enforcement officers and a medical practitioner of framing her client by a jiggered autopsy.
Where I come from you would risk being struck off for this, and you would obviously be disciplined. It's worth remembering JB presented no evidence in the preliminary proceedings for this claim. As far as I can see, it is a baseless smear.
MOO
In my view, it remains clearly unethical for JB, without evidence, to go on a podcast and accuse law enforcement officers and a medical practitioner of framing her client by a jiggered autopsy.
Where I come from you would risk being struck off for this, and you would obviously be disciplined. It's worth remembering JB presented no evidence in the preliminary proceedings for this claim. As far as I can see, it is a baseless smear.
MOO
bighousesmallroom
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2023
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 19
New to the case, so apologies. How do you know the time window of disposal? Others,rightfully so and with evidenciary analysis of phone and truck data, believe Suzanne was murdered friday. They believe the previous arrest affidavit and investigation failed to provide the necessary PROOF that Suzanne was murdered Saturday, hence the delay in rearrest.
Simply put, if what you say is fact. Barry would be in prison
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2018
- Messages
- 29,581
- Reaction score
- 695,646
We know from the phone exiting and entering airplane mode in the late evening/early morning hours of Saturday and Sunday. It provided something like a 4 hour window. Just enough time to dig a haphazard, panicked, last minute shallow grave.
The previous week, his phone logged between 0 and 2 events a night. On the night in question it logged 200. He was a busy boy, as he had to dump the body, stage the bike, and make sure he collected everything that he planned to dispose of in Broomfield.
As for the Friday thing, that just works on no level. Nothing makes sense if she's murdered Friday, while everything fits if the investigators got the Saturday murder right.
We've seen tons of cases where the killer has faked phone activity for the victim, thereby creating fake proof of life. That sort of thing falls apart immediately.
It's impossible here. They know where his phone was, they know where Suzanne's was, Suzanne was communicating normally on Saturday, and suddenly ceased communication just prior to Barry's arrival home. Everything is normal, until it isn't.
I could literally write pages on why the Friday thing doesn't work, from the "turkey episode" to them having lunch, to Suzanne's communications with JL, and the impossibility that Barry could have manufactured that.
Friday is a non-starter for me in every way.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2018
- Messages
- 990
- Reaction score
- 23,601
Respectfully, who are the “others” you’re referring to?
Do you really think they are more knowledgeable/smarter/know more about all the evidence in this case than CBI and FBI investigators? Do you really believe these investigators have the location of SM’s phone wrong on Saturday which showed located at the house? And how do you explain BM driving home that Saturday afternoon, calling Suzanne several times and then “did you leave?” text message just prior to him arriving at the house at 2:43pm, jumping out of his truck (didn’t even close the door of the truck when he got out) and an immediate flurry of activity begins with BM running around the property “shooting chipmunks” aka running around the property looking for/chasing Suzanne.
There’s a lot more imo that makes the killed Friday implausible and one thing that really sticks out to me and makes it even more unbelievable is we are supposed to believe BM was smart enough to spoof/clone Suzanne’s phone or whatever it’s called and only kept her alive (proof of life) until the last message she sent to Jeff Saturday afternoon at 2:11pm?
That’s nonsensical because if you want people to believe your story/narrative that Suzanne was alive last time you saw her in bed sleeping at 5:00am on Sunday morning, then you would keep her alive/pose as her on her phone beyond 2:11pm the previous afternoon.
Makes no sense whatsoever that BM would stop posing/communicating as Suzanne 15 hours! before he claimed to last see her alive.
IMHOO
#JUSTICEFORSUZANNE
Last edited:
bighousesmallroom
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2023
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 19
Respectfully, knowing is different than assuming. Barrys phone went in airplane on many occasions (friday night for 6 hours) that week(end) and you can't assume to know exactly what he was doing on Saturday when he switched it to airplane mode. He could have been destroying evidence from a Friday murder, or going places he didn't want discovered.
Suzanne texted Barry on May 6 2020 ( first text in 3 months between them) that she was done. She was afraid of Barry ,stated in text to multiple people. She was conned into thinking he was going to divorce. He had this planned, probably since they moved to colorado. Classic isolation and abusive domestic murder of a spouse wanting a divorce. I believe she was murdered Fri.Everything after with her phone is staging- and his girlfriend could have been an accomplice with Suzannes phone at a diffetent location if needed. I don't believe she would go to moonlight pizza for carryout (covid) in barrys truck alone with barry. I don't believe she would look at houses for sale with Barry. I don't believe she would change her Facebook password and try to "friend" 20 men, while in the middle of an attempted civil divorce. I don't believe she agree to a private veggie soup lunch date on Saturday. I don't think she would wanna hike anywhere with barry. I don't believe she texted - do we have summer tires for the range rover. I don't think she texted pick up hot tub chemicals for the nonfunctioning hot tub. I don't believe she was sunbathing and taking selfies in her bikini on a 45 degree day with 20 mph winds at 9000 elevation. I dont believe she would be sexually aroused on Saturday (last cancer treatment monday) to ask her lover to strip down naked on whatsapp, especially with her suspicion of Barry spying on her. I believe Suzanne was murdered Friday.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 101
- Guests online
- 1,391
- Total visitors
- 1,492