Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #59 *ARREST*

[Boxer]

Yes, how would he have known the evidence was gone if he wasn't supposed to know what evidence was there? How was he so sure LE did not collect important evidence from the bike or the scene?

He did seem to be fixated on the way investigators handled the scene as though that was the only part of the investigation that mattered. Never mind all the different agencies involved and all the resources used, it was the handling of the bike that messed up the entire investigation.

I do wonder what else he might have planted besides the other items that were found.

IMO

MOO I believe BM was complaining about things his Ranger buddy told him hapoened when the deputies arrived.
Many police vehicles parked on the shoulder.
And it is true that if they pulled the bike up like it was a lost bike call instead of a suspicious missing person call, that would not be right. But after words hopefully by Monday. the CCSO was,start ing to process things as a crime. They annouced it was a criminal investigation by Wed morning.

 

[Willowwood26]

Because I think the date refers to Suzanne's disappearance and when the gun was found, not when Barry acquired it.[

Because I think the date refers to Suzanne's disappearance and when the gun was found, not when Barry acquired it.

I am trying to find where it says the gun was found. Can you point me in that direction? Another poster said this too upthread but hasn’t responded. Many thanks!

 

[MsBetsy]

I am trying to find where it says the gun was found. Can you point me in that direction? Another poster said this too upthread but hasn’t responded. Many thanks!

I "think" it is just speculation that the gun was found, or that LE now has the gun in evidence. We don't know for sure how they know Barry was in possession of the gun.
Imo

 

[DizzyB]

MOO I believe BM was complaining about things his Ranger buddy told him hapoened when the deputies arrived.
Many police vehicles parked on the shoulder.
And it is true that if they pulled the bike up like it was a lost bike call instead of a suspicious missing person call, that would not be right. But after words hopefully by Monday. the CCSO was,start ing to process things as a crime. They annouced it was a criminal investigation by Wed morning.

I have learned here about so many other things at the scene that are examined (thanks Trackergd). If the initial call was about a possible bike accident, parts of the scene could have been contaminated in the interest of potentially saving a life. However, I’m sure there was a lot left to work with. I imagine that keeping random people such as GD away from the scene was part of that process. Defense attorneys may try to use the early confusion to get the jury to discount that evidence. Hopefully they are smart enough to navigate through all of the noise.

 

[Alethea]

Sincere apologies, was not meant in any way to be offensive but now see how it came across that way. My (albeit shallow) point was trying to address previous comments in which opinions were expressed regarding BM's intentional hiring of female attorneys. Even in a high profile case like HW's, MSM was analyzing this aspect, too. Doesn't make it "right," though.

Again, apologies.

My comment really wasn't directed at you so I apologize if it seemed personal. I have just seen so many comments on this thread since they were hired and wanted to offer another perspective.

 

[GatorFL]

I am trying to find where it says the gun was found. Can you point me in that direction? Another poster said this too upthread but hasn’t responded. Many thanks!

@MsBetsy took the words out of my mouth in the post under yours.

I'll add, we know they found a SBR. We don't know when it came into Barry's possession, if it was a modified gun or factory, if it was a sawed off shotgun or a rifle (although I am assuming it is a rifle since a sawed off shotgun is not a rifle at all) or if it was used in a crime. He's charged with possessing it.

 

[ToastIsUp]

To be clear, Colorado law supersedes federal law when defining illegal gun possession (dangerous weapon) in Colorado.

I think what you mean to say is that Colorado law can be more restrictive than federal law, not that it supersedes it. IANAL, but I don't think that Colorado could, for example, make it legal to make new automatic weapons for civilians because it is prohibited by federal law. The whole rifle length thing and transfer tax stuff goes back to the National Firearms Act of 1934--it was not invented by Colorado out of the air.

 

[payitforward3000]

The new charges were filed twice on the court webpage it looks like? Does anyone know if there is a difference in the two documents?

 

[swedeheart]

Thank you very much for posting,it is frustrating when clicking on a news article link to find it is not available to Europeans.

I am always so grateful to American posters who summarize unavailable articles or post alternative links.

I try to search for all the recent newscasts on their individual Youtube channels every morning and post them here, when I have the extra time. I am American, but live in Europe, so I feel your frustration. I finally got a VPN, but it can be a pain in the sometimes.

 

[DizzyB]

The new charges were filed twice on the court webpage it looks like? Does anyone know if there is a difference in the two documents?

The words Domestic Violence added above the charges?

 

[Willowwood26]

@MsBetsy took the words out of my mouth in the post under yours.

I'll add, we know they found a SBR. We don't know when it came into Barry's possession, if it was a modified gun or factory, if it was a sawed off shotgun or a rifle (although I am assuming it is a rifle since a sawed off shotgun is not a rifle at all) or if it was used in a crime. He's charged with possessing it.

Thank you!! I guess I wasn’t thinking it through all the way, with the charge. Then that would be obvious. This case is heartbreaking and I can’t wait for justice to be done. Beautiful, full of life, Suzanne deserved to live out the life she fought so hard for. All her pictures draw you in with her smile and make you want to learn how she radiated so much joy.

 

[Whiteorchids]

Honestly these types of comments are really offensive to women attorneys. Guess what - most people don't hire a woman lawyer because she's a woman. They hire her because she's a good attorney. If Barry hired male attorneys no one on this thread would be screeching about his choice of attorneys and their looks and their qualifications. Barry hired two extremely qualified CO defense attorneys. Cover their photos and read their resumes. Do you still have the same snarky takes? I didn't think so. Let's try to be part of the solution and not the problem.

If that’s the case why aren’t potential jurors during the voir dire hidden from the attorneys view? Isn’t the Defense attorney looking for a specific type of juror race, sex, education, background, etc. to help their client and vice versa for prosecution?

 

[EggSalad]

Here is the amended complaint:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...8/21CR78 Morphew Amended Complaint 051821.pdf


I’m intrigued by the May 9 - March 4 dates for count 3&4.

IMO, count 3 implies that BM did clean up and other things at the home to tamper with physical evidence. Based on the dates, it seems to state that he did multiple things to the home leading all the way up until it was sold.

For count 4 (fire arm possession) one would interpret that that BM no longer possessed the gun as of March 4th. I wonder if that means the gun was hidden on the PP property and as soon as BM sold the property, he no longer possessed the weapon.

I’d think the May 9th start date of the charges imply SM was murdered May 9th with the gun being the murder weapon. BM did short term and long term cleanup of the PP home including hiding of that gun. And once he no longer possessed the home or gun that was concealed, the charges have that end date.

Which makes me think the new owners consented to a search.

 

[DizzyB]

If that’s the case why aren’t potential jurors during the voir dire hidden from the attorneys view? Isn’t the Defense attorney looking for a specific type of juror race, sex, education, background, etc. to help their client and vice versa for prosecution? Isn’t that sexist as well?

We could totally derail the thread if we went down this road because so many things in life are based on factors that many of us swear we do not take into account. We do. We look at fat people differently. Pretty people differently. It all matters, and I think we are lying to ourselves when we say we are above it. Smart counts, for sure. But other factors come into play as well.

 

[Mintyer]

My comment really wasn't directed at you so I apologize if it seemed personal. I have just seen so many comments on this thread since they were hired and wanted to offer another perspective.

Althea, I appreciate your valuable input in discussions. I know little about the standards of practice for your profession.

I'm curious how an attorney works with a client that is obviously lying. I'm thinking of BM and Leticia S. I can't imagine that an open honest discussion or confrontation would be easy. Do they only focus on the prosecution's burden of proof? And avoid difficult conversations with their client.
Hope you will expound. Thx in advance.

 

[fcavanaugh]

Here is the amended complaint:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/21CR78 Morphew Amended Complaint 051821.pdf


I’m intrigued by the May 9 - March 4 dates for count 3&4.

IMO, count 3 implies that BM did clean up and other things at the home to tamper with physical evidence. Based on the dates, it seems to state that he did multiple things to the home leading all the way up until it was sold.

For count 4 (fire arm possession) one would interpret that that BM no longer possessed the gun as of March 4th. I wonder if that means the gun was hidden on the PP property and as soon as BM sold the property, he no longer possessed the weapon.

I’d think the May 9th start date of the charges imply SM was murdered May 9th with the gun being the murder weapon. BM did short term and long term cleanup of the PP home including hiding of that gun. And once he no longer possessed the home or gun that was concealed, the charges have that end date.

Which makes me think the new owners consented to a search.

I’m intrigued by the dates in Counts 3 & 4 too @EggSalad, and posted similar thoughts the other day, albeit they came out a bit more garbled (brain overload whilst processing the charges), than you succinctly state above.
I’ve always felt Suzanne was murdered on Saturday May 9th, after BM got home from the jobsite, around same time SM’s wedding convo with her BFF abruptly ended. There have been several times mentioned as to when the wedding convo abruptly cutoff. I’ve heard a couple different early afternoon times, and an evening time mentioned. It will be interesting to know this and many other details, hopefully soon.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

 

[RickshawFan]

Sincere apologies, was not meant in any way to be offensive but now see how it came across that way. My (albeit shallow) point was trying to address previous comments in which opinions were expressed regarding BM's intentional hiring of female attorneys. Even in a high profile case like HW's, MSM was analyzing this aspect, too. Doesn't make it "right," though.

Again, apologies.

I could totally see BM hiring a woman attorney for gender-specific reasons. For starters, he's all about appearances. I'll bet he thinks it would look good for him to have a woman attorney in a case that involves a woman victim, domestic violence, female witnesses, a woman neighbor, a woman DA..... And BM is such a guy guy. He really MIGHT be playing a woman card to help his case....

What may be more interesting is how BM will take advice and orders from a woman. Not well, methinks.

 

[windrower]

IMO, BM and his family hired the attorneys they did based mostly on the not guilty verdict rendered in the Tom Fallis case.

In their minds, that case and BM’s probably seem similar—a dead wife, a missing presumed dead wife, and husband accused.

But SUZANNE’s situation is far different than the Fallis case. So much more movement to track and trace in almost every aspect, making BM a whole ‘nother animal.

So to speak. IMO.

 

[NuttMegg]

We could totally derail the thread if we went down this road because so many things in life are based on factors that many of us swear we do not take into account. We do. We look at fat people differently. Pretty people differently. It all matters, and I think we are lying to ourselves when we say we are above it. Smart counts, for sure. But other factors come into play as well.

IMO he hired 2 certain attorneys for specific reasons, two of which are their gender and appearance. Another reason would be some of the code words in the description re having young male children to protect, paraphrased. That concept has been brought forth with the recent changes in prosecuting accused sex offenders on campuses.

I don't say that any specific person in this case is referring to that phenomenon, but many people these days do think that young men on campus accused of sexual assault were just feeling their oats, and the female student should not have gotten herself so out of control drunk. OK for the guy to get himself out of control drunk, but not the woman. And the code words spill forth...we must protect our young men against charges that could change their lives, deny them jobs, carry life-long sex offender labels.

Every now and then I re-watch the excellent old movie "12 angry men". About jury deliberations. Not about the choice of counsel, but about influences on the jury and preconceived notions.

When we see people with white hair, we treat that person with disinterested politeness, at least at first. Same with seeing a person with a zillion tatts, piercings, etc. It's just the way it is, and always has been. IMO.

 

[Whiteorchids]

I heard, read or both somewhere that when a defense attorney takes on a client that they don’t even ask his/hers client if they are guilty but instead ask questions regarding the AA. Can anyone confirm this?