Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #61 *ARREST*

[Boxer]

They're being called victims because, assuming Suzanne was murdered, they meet the legal definition of victims of a crime as specified in CRS § 24-4.1-302(5) since they are the children of a murder victim. And the court is citing their right 'to be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal justice process" (CRS § 24-4.1-302.5(1)(a)) as a reason for keeping the AA sealed.

If you could direct me to a place where adult children or minor children are cited as victims I would appreciate it.
I see victim to only mean specifically a victim of a crime in the Colorado Statute.
(CRS § 24-4.1-302.5(1)(a))

There is no charge in BMs AA of committing a crime against them.

 

[EggSalad]

Yep, pretty much what I said too.

Also, for anyone, why was BM getting his bobcat bucket worked on at DSI, according to JP?
Since they're not a heavy machinery repair shop, I mean.
They're a commercial building company. Diesslin Structures, Inc. - Building More Than a Reputation

I have to wonder, was it just a favor from a friend who works in the shop there?
Because why not take it to an actual heavy machinery repair shop?

I believe BM subcontracted for DSI at times. I’d imagine they have their own shop on site for small repairs, and would let someone like BM use the shop to do their own work.

Just a guess / MOo.

 

[EggSalad]

I am not sure changing attachments = doing a mechanical thingy and it doesn’t feel like he would have to go to DSI to change an attachment. He probably can do that at a jobsite.

Good point. Was it JP that said he was changing attachments at DSI or did I completely make up that detail?

Agreed that changing attachments at a job site should be the norm. I guess the only catch would be if it was an attachment that BM didn’t own that was at DSI.

**Edit** : JP said fixing his bucket and/or fixing the bucket plate. So it was not changing attachments. This is from the recently released LS interview.

 

[10ofRods]

I wonder if DSI is now concerned about their insurance company's reaction to having non-workers do work on the site. Oh, what a web Barry has woven.

JP did work there - I wonder if they want him back now and if he considered the consequences of going public with what he saw and heard.

In most CO mechanics' shops, there's a sign telling all non-employees to stay out of the work area for liability reasons, and I wonder if there was such a sign at DSI.

 

[10ofRods]

Can any one please share a link to the ruling to keep the AA sealed?
I am looking but can't find.

Someone may have already responded, but here's the link (it's at the top):

Colorado Judicial Branch - Chaffee - Cases of Interest - People of the State of Colorado v. Barry Lee Morphew

It's a fascinating read - and I am having some of the same thoughts as you are.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I wonder if DSI is now concerned about their insurance company's reaction to having non-workers do work on the site. Oh, what a web Barry has woven.

JP did work there - I wonder if they want him back now and if he considered the consequences of going public with what he saw and heard.

In most CO mechanics' shops, there's a sign telling all non-employees to stay out of the work area for liability reasons, and I wonder if there was such a sign at DSI.

If I understood him correctly (it's entirely possible I did not), JP says he's working there now (at DSI), but at the time he was working for someone else and he pointed to his left, like the employer is next door or something. Close enough anyway that he saw BM clear as day. Anyway I think that's what he said.

 

[TKG]

Someone may have already responded, but here's the link (it's at the top):

Colorado Judicial Branch - Chaffee - Cases of Interest - People of the State of Colorado v. Barry Lee Morphew

It's a fascinating read - and I am having some of the same thoughts as you are.

I am as well. Yes, they have endured trauma at the hands of their father, I believe he changed the trajectory of their entire lives.

They however, are not the "victims", SM was the victim. They are recipients of their father's selfish acts. Not sure I follow this "victim" legalese as applicable to them. Unless, of curse, they were also victims of the DV and may testify with incriminating information.

CM made a point that I completely agree with. If the victim label is applied to M1 & M2, SM's relatives are also victims.

 

[Gigi3]

Thanks to all of you helping me understand the situation with text messages and hearsay. I think I sorta kinda got it now!

You guys are awesome!

 

[O.Incandenza]

If you could direct me to a place where adult children or minor children are cited as victims I would appreciate it.
I see victim to only mean specifically a victim of a crime in the Colorado Statute.
(CRS § 24-4.1-302.5(1)(a))

There is no charge in BMs AA of committing a crime against them.

Sure. It's in the definition of 'Victim' for that particular part of the CRS. You can find it here: 2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Administration :: Article 4.1 - :: Crime Victim Compensation and Victim and Witness Rights :: Part 3 - :: Guidelines for Assuring the Rights of Victims of and Witnesses to Crimes :: § 24-4.1-302. Definitions

The relevant part reads:

"Victim" means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative.​

So the daughters qualify, as do her siblings. Barry would as well if he weren't accused of being the person accountable for the crime.

 

[waldojabba]

I believe that non-nuclear family members do not fall under the legal definition. Clearly in any situation there are “many victims” but the judge is utilizing the legal definition as it exists in Colorado.

I think I googled this correctly in reference to CRS 24-4.1-302.5 (1)(a)

the bold is by me bbm
(1) In order to preserve and protect a victim's rights to justice and due process, each victim of a crime has the following rights:

(a) The right to be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal justice process;

Attaching the Colorado Crime Victims Rights
https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ovp/VRA/Crime_Victims_Rights_largeprint22016.pdf

I am still looking for a Colorado actual legal definition of "victim of a crime" that extends the definition to mean not just the actual victim of the crime ( in this case SM is the victim of the crime and the crime is murder) but extends those rights to family
Here the judge extends the victim of a crime definition to mean also that the girls are victims of a crime and due the rights of the victim of the crime? I def feel like I missed something ? Is there something that clearly defines legally what "victim of crime " means in Colorado. The girls suffered no crime directly, they were not the murder victims, but they definitely suffered collaterol damage as a result - and were definitly victimized as all family members were. Sorry for going around in circles - it just feels like faulty logic or something

 

[Boxer]

Someone may have already responded, but here's the link (it's at the top):

Colorado Judicial Branch - Chaffee - Cases of Interest - People of the State of Colorado v. Barry Lee Morphew

It's a fascinating read - and I am having some of the same thoughts as you are.

Thank you for this.

 

[SouthAussie]

I am as well. Yes, they have endured trauma at the hands of their father, I believe he changed the trajectory of their entire lives.

They however, are not the "victims", SM was the victim. They are recipients of their father's selfish acts. Not sure I follow this "victim" legalese as applicable to them. Unless, of curse, they were also victims of the DV and may testify with incriminating information.

CM made a point that I completely agree with. If the victim label is applied to M1 & M2, SM's relatives are also victims.

They are likely victims of his manipulation ... manipulation with regard to the convenient camping trip and Mothers Day calls to their mother. Which could be directly related to the crime. Get the girls out of the way. And get the girls to discover that their mother is no longer around for their texts/calls.

And potentially victims of further manipulation, if they are to be called to the stand during the trial and he pre-influences them further.

 

[waldojabba]

Sure. It's in the definition of 'Victim' for that particular part of the CRS. You can find it here: 2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Administration :: Article 4.1 - :: Crime Victim Compensation and Victim and Witness Rights :: Part 3 - :: Guidelines for Assuring the Rights of Victims of and Witnesses to Crimes :: § 24-4.1-302. Definitions

The relevant part reads:

"Victim" means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative.​

So the daughters qualify, as do her siblings. Barry would as well if he weren't accused of being the person accountable for the crime.

Oh I see - you are saying since the actual victim of the crime, SM, is incapacitated any of those relationships listed can be her lawful respresentative ? So, if they are be her lawful representative that in turn makes them victims of a crime?

 

[Boxer]

Sure. It's in the definition of 'Victim' for that particular part of the CRS. You can find it here: 2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Administration :: Article 4.1 - :: Crime Victim Compensation and Victim and Witness Rights :: Part 3 - :: Guidelines for Assuring the Rights of Victims of and Witnesses to Crimes :: § 24-4.1-302. Definitions

The relevant part reads:

"Victim" means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative.​

So the daughters qualify, as do her siblings. Barry would as well if he weren't accused of being the person accountable for the crime.

"(5) "Victim" means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative.


All right.
MOO So under Part 3 all family members are included as well as witnesses.

 

[Error505]

Thank you!

You’re always welcome!

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I am as well. Yes, they have endured trauma at the hands of their father, I believe he changed the trajectory of their entire lives.

They however, are not the "victims", SM was the victim. They are recipients of their father's selfish acts. Not sure I follow this "victim" legalese as applicable to them. Unless, of curse, they were also victims of the DV and may testify with incriminating information.

CM made a point that I completely agree with. If the victim label is applied to M1 & M2, SM's relatives are also victims.

Not in the legal sense. Perhaps Chris was giving an opinion as he often does. As I said previously there are many victims in the dictionary sense but the judge is talking specifically in the legal sense.

 

[10ofRods]

You could rake out that entire beach front in less than 5 mins with a bobcat. With a hand rake, it would take 30+ minutes.

The bobcat would definitely have been there for their work (moving earth, rocks, etc...), so I can’t imagine her not using it. If you’ve ever seen someone experienced using a bobcat, they can zip around and get a lot done in a short period of time.

I will be very surprised if we learn that MG used the Bobcat. For one thing, there's no mention of the Bobcat even being there. Just BM, telling MG to "rake." The Bobcat would have had to be trailered and taken away that morning (Saturday) because somehow it is on Barry's property and wrapped in crime scene tape by Monday. Barry could have taken it to Broomfield, but no one says he came back to the beach property. It's my opinion that using the Bobcat to level the beach would make sense, but to get that truly "beach" feeling on a slope that's just been created, I think a hand rake is by far a better tool for the right look. I do not think Barry left MG with the Bobcat or ever let her operate it, for that matter.

But if he did let her use it Saturday morning, when does he go back and get it? Makes BM a very busy man. To me, it sounded like he just left the site rather abruptly around 11 am, canceling the rest of MG's day of work. It's my understand the beach aspect of the landscaping had already been done in the days before.

Scheduling someone to work for 8 hours on a Saturday when it would only take 5 minutes (with Bobcat) seems absurd, but then, so much in this case is absurd.

 

[Error505]

DBM I’m getting things more confused I think.

 

[155etta]

There were a couple of posts about the militia at the time Adventures with Purpose were in Salida searching for Suzanne, but I've forgotten what those posts actually said. They were in Salida in October.

The guys from AWP sounded threatened and I assumed they not only left because of frozen ponds, but also because of feeling threatened. They told MK and CM (Profiling Evil) about people being on the other side of the river with guns watching them.

Chafee County Patriots. Are they similar to Qanon? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

What Exactly is the Purpose of Chaffee Patriots? - by Jan Wondra - Ark Valley Voice

Why do I have a constant nagging feeling the inmate is going to walk free??

Well that was an interesting read.

 

[Murphy1950]

So where's the screw up with materials etc.? The contractor said he knew Barry was going to be working on it in an interview with Lauren. MG mentioned that he had mentioned the Broomfield job before that weekend, but she thought it was just going to be the two of them. JP said the inspector showed up Monday. Lauren and I think JP both mentioned some section of the wall that was to be higher. IF the wall was not going to be higher then they probably didn't need more brick, they could just unstack and restack everything existing, BUT if the design was changing then whose responsibility was it to order brick? MG relays that Barry said it was "coming" on Monday. In my mind, if the general contractor knew they were coming did Barry push everything ahead a couple days to fit "his" timeline? Because everything sounds to me like he did plan on being in Broomfield that week.....but from what MG says it sounds like it was sped up. For me it's not the wall job in that Suzanne isn't there and the job was loosely planned. It sounds more like Barry sped up the timing which I agree is suspect although doesn't explain who scheduled the inspector JP mentioned that showed up on Monday.

MG did say it was just her and Barry and scheduled for the end of April but got delayed. I don't find any of this a mystery. The job was scheduled for Monday, NOT SUNDAY nobody had a problem with Monday.

So Barry, with 30+ years in the business, shows up on a Sunday, a family holiday no less, to work a municipal job, which he was told in a meeting has special requirements in place, special permits needed along with noise and safety concerns to protect the public and in addition to those requirements the need for inspections while work was on progress due to the nature of the job but so what? Note...a job he had previously SCREWED UP. He knew better. Screams alibi, IMO he desperately needed to distance himself that Sunday from Suzanne!

28 years experience working as a subcontractor in the concrete trade, I never once ordered an inspection, I've rounded up subcontractors, supplies, equipment, manpower, but the inspections fell on the general contractor, who by the way was expecting that they were going to be working Monday. If the entire job was only subcontractors the general contractor still always had a man there, usually called the project manager. It's obvious they had one as he was the one who spoke out as to this situation... "They wouldn't have allowed him to work on Sunday" AND "the Indiana-based source who works for E.A. Outdoor Services told Scharf they did not believe Barry did any work on the wall that Sunday." So they had to be there at the site on Monday to make this observation. Anyways, not sure there were any inspections. I don't know if JP was referring to the Project manager of Garrett Construction or EA outdoors as an inspector. Lauren said the 'inspector was ordered by Garrett , the General Contractor.

As subcontractors we bought and ordered the materials. When all you do is concrete, you get better prices than a general contractor could, because of volume purchasing over time. It would make sense that Barry could get better prices on stone boulders and block.

Part 1 Inspector..
i'm told normally that garrett
08:50
construction llc provides a geotech
08:53
inspector


Part 2 Inspector

backfill and geogrid so therefore the
09:34
general contractor couldn't send out the
09:36
geotech inspector even if they had been
09:39
notified
09:40
also on ea outdoor services llc
09:43
website states an ea outdoor services
09:46
member
09:47
normally monitors the progress each day

I read elsewhere until the Geotech Inspector signs off the city can't/won't send an inspector