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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #361
I don't think it's just the daughters the judge is concerned about. He mentioned other victims as well as witnesses and the need to ensure they are not harassed or intimidated. There are two families to be considered and they seem to be divided at this time.

The AA for Letecia was primarily filled with her own accounts (or stories) and the physical evidence against her. In this case there are many more witnesses involved.

The judge seems to be equally concerned about the accused rights to a fair trial. I don't think he wants to take any chances or give the defense any reason to claim Barry's constitutional rights were violated.

IMO
What you say is balanced and makes sense, as usual MsBetsy. But the fact of the matter IMO is that the gen public will notice only the part about victims being allowed extra time to absorb the AA. The media, IMO, won't take time to provide insight into other aspects of the ruling, because the living victims' rights being so emphasized here, with so little focus on the murdered victim.
 
Last edited:
  • #362
I do think that Suzanne would fully support anything that possible could be done to protect her daughters. If keeping the AA sealed aids in ensuring a fair trial,then I am for any measure to make sure there is in the end justice for Suzanne.
 
  • #363
How many victims are allowed to peruse the AA before the general public? Are the siblings of Suzanne also considered victims? How about her step brother who clearly loved and treasured her? Someone asked a version of this last night, but I didn't see an answer.

If the court is going to produce documents as they did yesterday, how can they omit the definition of "victim"?
 
Last edited:
  • #364
<modsnip> I'm rather perturbed that the judge is not focusing on the heinous nature of the crime and bending more toward the state's rights than the defendant's or staying neutral.

What say you?
I think this is dangerous because it is non-transparent.

For those who think this is fine because the details in the AA will eventually come out at trial, what makes you so certain of that?

This judge may disallow many of the facts alleged in the AA. And if that occurs in a non-transparent way as so much has so far, we may never know what facts were alleged or why the judge disallowed them. Is that transparent?

It doesn't escape me that this is a new DA, elected the past year. And it was a contentious political fight. Is this a continuation of that political fight... an attempt to make this DA look like a failure? Is that why the judge seemingly admonished the investigators and prosecutors for the length of the AA? How can you know?

It seems to me the length of the AA has a lot to do with the lengths to which this defendant attempted to hide his crimes, intimidate those who cooperated with LE, and influence those who were investigating.

I'm not satisfied in any way with this decision and I think it bodes very poorly for justice in the 11th Judicial District of the state of Colorado.

ETA: Let me add that in the state of CO, a person charged with first degree murder is not generally granted bail. To support that, at least as I understand it, the law requires more than probable cause for that arrest, it requires presumptive evidence of guilt to hold the defendant until trial. So, one would expect an AA to be longer in such a case.
 
  • #365
<modsnip> I'm rather perturbed that the judge is not focusing on the heinous nature of the crime and bending more toward the state's rights than the defendant's or staying neutral.

What say you?
A valid point @IRBHTX Without seeing and reading the AA, it’s hard for me to say the judge is “not focusing on the heinous nature of the crime...” Maybe the AA contains some very heinous evidence.

How could the two daughters be “more victimized” than losing their own mother to murder? Maybe revealing the evidentiary details of the murder itself is more heinous than just the “knowing” the murder took place. That to me is what nightmares are made of. MOO
 
  • #366
I think this is dangerous because it is non-transparent.

For those who think this is fine because the details in the AA will eventually come out at trial, what makes you so certain of that?

This judge may disallow many of the facts alleged in the AA. And if that occurs in a non-transparent way as so much has so far, we may never know what facts were alleged or why the judge disallowed them. Is that transparent?

It doesn't escape me that this is a new DA, elected the past year. And it was a contentious political fight. Is this a continuation of that political fight... an attempt to make this DA look like a failure? Is that why the judge seemingly admonished the investigators and prosecutors for the length of the AA? How can you know?

It seems to me the length of the AA has a lot to do with the lengths to which this defendant attempted to hide his crimes, intimidate those who cooperated with LE, and influence those who were investigating.

I'm not satisfied in any way with this decision and I think it bodes very poorly for justice in the 11th Judicial District of the state of Colorado.

ETA: Let me add that in the state of CO, a person charged with first degree murder is not generally granted bail. To support that, at least as I understand it, the law requires more than probable cause for that arrest, it requires presumptive evidence of guilt to hold the defendant until trial. So, one would expect an AA to be longer in such a case.
bbm
Great post, @Diddian !
 
  • #367
I don't think it's just the daughters the judge is concerned about. He mentioned other victims as well as witnesses and the need to ensure they are not harassed or intimidated. There are two families to be considered and they seem to be divided at this time.

The AA for Letecia was primarily filled with her own accounts (or stories) and the physical evidence against her. In this case there are many more witnesses involved.

The judge seems to be equally concerned about the accused rights to a fair trial. I don't think he wants to take any chances or give the defense any reason to claim Barry's constitutional rights were violated.

IMO
.
I think this is super important here. BM has created a dysfunctional...mess...that now extends far beyond the boundaries of his family (he loves invading boundaries, it's in his nature - whether by nurture or genetics). The person closest to him, who knew the most about containing him and comforting him, has been destroyed. No one in his immediate family system could believe that, at first. There are some who still don't.

The Court has decided to go gentle on those next victims. The more I think about it, the more I'm okay with it.

The outcome is the same (hearings in August). The Court arrested Barry and put him in jail and has not entertained, yet, any motions for bail (which would likely go to appeal at this point). So while Barry's attorneys got a "win" here, Barry himself gets to chill until August 9-24, which is probably not what he thinks he hired them for.

The Court thinks the AA contains information that would disturbing to some of the victims and to the potential jurors.

The court made it clear, the AA is sealed till 7 days after the hearing on 8/24 for the protection of additional victims and witnesses.
The court was concerned about the amount of information in the AA, i.e. making it easy to track down victims and witnesses.

It's just a massive AA with birthdates, addresses and witness statements that maybe some minions of BMs might seek to silence etc.

IIRC it was the same in Gannon Stauch's case, the preliminary hearing just happened more quickly.
 
  • #368
How many victims are allowed to peruse the AA before the general public? Are the siblings of Suzanne also considered victims? How about her step brother who clearly loved and treasured her? Someone asked a version of this last night, but I didn't see an answer.

If the court is going to produce documents as they did yesterday, how can they omit the definition of "victim"?
Well, they did refer to the Victim's Rights Act. Immediate family are considered victims, including siblings, parents, parents-in-law, the spouse, and children. It also includes grandparents. Imo
 
  • #369
I’m thinking that all of the stuff that’s currently in the AA will eventually come out, just not in a court setting. Judge cannot backtrack once he opens Pandora’s box.

How soon would the trial be if Barry is bound over? If the legal teams don’t have time now to work on redactions now, how will they have time in the 7 days after the hearing? If I use the argument about a fair trial, that AA will still be out there in time to taint a jury pool.

With the new victim rights law, could we be talking about people like the poor neighbor who ended up in the thick of a murder? Are they concerned for her as she might be a very important witness? Is she somewhat reluctant at this point to deal with what could happen to her life once the AA comes out?
 
  • #370
Seattle1 was responding to my quote. I used the word “gut”. It was my interpretation of page 3. IMO

A significant portion of the information in the Affidavit was not relevant to the courts finding of probable cause and possibly not admissible at trial under the Colorado Rules of Evidence.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/21CR78 Order Limit Public Redacted.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2D53zHkD9-DwpJoXJe5grS5JTOGv-1kcEz7JPCzJ7IoZ7mtpe_PuAO4-k
^^BBM

The Court is only summarizing an argument by the defense which the State has already pointed out as invalid because the rules of evidence and Colorado case law do NOT pertain to a probable cause affidavit -- which the Court confirms - page 5:

To the extent the People argue that a probable cause affidavit does not need to conform to the rules of evidence, the Court agrees.
 
Last edited:
  • #371
Are you saying that because some members of the public may not understand or accept the document for what it is - a gathering of "probable" cause, it should be withheld? Who cares how a random person thinks about it or makes assumptions - positive or negative - about it. If that were a legitimate reason for withholding this AA, would it not be a legitimate reason for withholding ALL AAs? My apologies if I have misunderstood you.

Obviously how a “random person” thinks about this is important because those “random people” will be jurors who are tasked with determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant based on admissible evidence only. There are rules of evidence that govern trials.

ALL AAs are reviewed for sensitive and potentially inflammatory information and they ARE redacted. The difference is most AAs are 1-3 pages and the officers are smart enough to think about what they write in their affidavit considering the Court’s constitutional obligations to the defendant.

The arrest affidavits for random people are not just published online. Many documents are filed under seal in criminal cases. Defendants in high profile cases are already at a disadvantage because of the media attention. Most cases and defendants don’t get any of this scrutiny.
 
  • #372
Believe me I wanted to read the AA as much as anyone else and was disappointed to learn the news yesterday. At first, I couldn’t help but feel that the Judge’s decision almost felt like a win for BM, and still struggle with the issue of the public’s right to know aspect. Having said that, there are times when I’ve had to learn to trust the process and this is shaping up to be one of those times and have to have faith that everything taking place, decisions, rulings etc., at the end of he day, are to ensure that BM gets a fair trial and that his victim, Suzanne Morphew, receives ultimate justice.

The Judge signed off on the arrest warrant. To do so, means he felt there was enough probable cause warranting BM’s arrest. This fact in itself tells me the Judge felt that there’s enough damning evidence against BM, and he is sitting right where he should and deserves to be- stewing in his “cage.”

After having more time to think about and digest the Judge’s decision and keeping in mind the 180 multi-state interviews LE conducted just in the first 4. months of the investigation, and likely many more interviews that were conducted the past 7 months, without trying to sound flippant, I think LE and DA might have decided to throw everything but the kitchen sink into the AA, and without knowing their reasoning, I can only assume they thought it would help bolster their case against BM. Maybe they thought it would help/go toward proving the premeditation aspect of his crime.

Once BM and his defense team got their hands on the AA, they saw all the damning evidence and witness testimony and some testimony from all the many multi state interviews conducted by LE task force, that go to BM’s
less than desirable character which they absolutely do not want out in the public domain for obvious reasons not least of which is worried about tainting jury pool before going to potential trial. So whatever they can argue to get ruled as inadmissible as heresay or whatever, they absolutely are going to try to do as is common defense strategy. So my thinking is there’ll likely be a hearing down the road to see what defense can get ruled as inadmissible.

With regard to protecting victims and witnesses, the Judjge is adhering to the victim rights act. This is a high profile case, wants to ensure BM gets a fair trial, and the Judge is being extra careful here to prevent victim/witness tampering from media including social media, general public etc., from harassing victims and witnesses etc.
BM knows what’s been said about him as he’s seen the AA and the discovery against him.
He’s behind bars right now where he belongs, but he could still have “people” on the outside that could potentially try to tamper with/harm some victims and witnesses, with or without his influence.

Suzanne is the ultimate victim here no question. The daughters are victims via collateral damage of their Father’s reprehensible actions and decision to take
their Mother from them.
Too bad BM didn’t think of anyone else but himself before he decided to do the unthinkable.

All of the above IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne
 
Last edited:
  • #373
A valid point @IRBHTX Without seeing and reading the AA, it’s hard for me to say the judge is “not focusing on the heinous nature of the crime...” Maybe the AA contains some very heinous evidence. How could the two daughters be “more victimized” than losing their own mother to murder? Maybe revealing the evidentiary details of the murder itself is more heinous than just the “knowing” the murder took place. That to me is what nightmares are made of. MOO

I couldn't agree more. I do suspect once the AA is released, it will make perfect sense why it was sealed as long as it was. Folks are asking "what makes this case any different?" (than others with similar circumstances) and I suppose the thing(s) that makes it different, is why the AA is sealed.

jmo
 
  • #374
MOO
LS tried speaking with a BM “friend” the day of the arrest, but was turned away by LE who were at the friend’s home.
“I tried to speak with a friend of Barry Morphew’s in Poncha Springs, but a Chaffee County deputy told me that she was unavailable. Multiple LE vehicles have been seen at this home today. #FindSuzanneMorphew @FOX21News
https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1390097967613239297?s=21

SPECULATION
I’m of the opinion the person LS wanted to speak with is someone BM was dating. I would not be surprised if she is also a prosecution witness and maybe had been cooperating with LE prior to BM arrest. LE wasted no time letting her know BM was locked up. Could she also be fearing for her safety? MOO & speculation
 
  • #375
Actually, lengthy AA's are not that unusual in Colorado (where charging by complaint and information are typical --versus grand jury indictment).

For example, 12 yr-old Gannon Stauch was reported missing from El Paso County on about January 27, 2020. On February 28, 2020, the AA submitted to the court to document probable cause in support for the issuance of an Arrest Warrant for Letecia Stauch was 32 pages in length. This-- after a one-month investigation.

Patrick Frazee's AA, filed a month after Kelsey Berreth reported missing, was 12 pages-- albeit mostly digital/electronic information.

BM's investigation was ongoing for 12 months when the lengthy AA filed (129 pgs est).

Since Colorado does not allow live streaming of the preliminary hearing, I think most of us are happy to see a lengthy AA where we try to glean as many details as possible to compare with our favorite reporter's courtroom tweets.

I don't know why CCSO et., al decided to include what seems like every detail they came up with but I want to read all of it just the same! MOO

I wouldn’t consider 12 and 32 page AAs lengthy compared to 132 pages. I mean this one is 100 pages longer than the longest one you cited. The length of the investigation doesn’t really matter - if they discovered important evidence 10 months in, they don’t have to include a diary of what they did before.

I know everyone wants to read it but if it’s as bad as the judge implies you’re going to have pages redacted.

I don’t think spoiling the jury with inadmissible evidence in a case where you don’t even have a body is in the state’s interest at all.
 
  • #376
Believe me I wanted to read the AA as much as anyone else and was disappointed to learn the news yesterday. At first, I couldn’t help but feel that the Judge’s decision almost felt like a win for BM, and still struggle with the issue of the public’s right to know aspect. Having said that, there are times when I’ve had to learn to trust the process and maybe this is one of those times and everything taking place, decisions and rulings at he end of he day are to ensure that BM gets a fair trial and his victim, Suzanne Morphew receives ultimate justice.

The Judge signed off on the arrest warrant which means he felt there was enough probable cause to do so. That in itself tells me there is enough damning evidence against BM and he is sitting right where he should and deserves to be, stewing in his “cage.”

After reflecting more last night and keeping in mind all the interviews LE conducted in the first 4. months of the investigation, without trying to sound flippant, I think LE and DA might have decided to throw everything but the kitchen sink into the AA, and without knowing their reasoning, I can only assume they thought it would help bolster their case against BM. Maybe they thought it would help/go toward proving the premeditation aspect.

Once BM and his defense team got their hands on the AA, they saw all the damning evidence and witness testimony and some testimony from all the many multi state interviews that go to BM’s less than desirable character which they absolutely do not want out in the public domain for obvious reasons not least of which is worried about tainting jury pool before going to potential trial. So whatever they can argue to get ruled inadmissible as heresay or whatever, they absolutely are going to try to do as is common defense strategy. So my thinking is there’ll likely be a hearing down the road to see what defense can get ruled as inadmissible.

With regard to protecting victims and witnesses, the Judjge is adhering to the victims act. This is a high profile case, wants to ensure BM gets a fair trial, and the Judge is being extra careful here to prevent victim/witness tampering from media including social media public harassing victims and witnesses etc., BM knows what’s been said as he’s seen the AA and the discovery against him and he’s behind bars right now where he belongs, but he could still have “people” on the outside that could potentially tamper with/harm some victims and witnesses.

Suzanne is the ultimate victim here no question. The daughters are victims too via collateral damage of their Father’s reprehensible actions and deciding to take their Mother from them. Too bad BM didn’t think of anyone else but himself before he decided to do the unthinkable.

All of the above IMHOO


Well said. All of it. 100% agree.
 
  • #377
One last thing: evidence is supposed to be introduced at trial. That is when evidence enters the public record and is disclosed to jurors and the public. Both sides get an opportunity to test and contest the other side’s evidence. Releasing every theory and evidence before trial for whatever reason can be argued to infringe on the defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him. Just because we have the internet doesn’t mean the entire trial system and rules of evidence shouldn’t apply.

I’m getting concerned that people are treating this like the next episode of a tv show that they’re entitled to watch rather than the very serious criminal charges they are. Suzanne didn’t sign up to be on a reality show you gossip about online, she was likely murdered by the person she trusted most in the world.
 
Last edited:
  • #378
I’m thinking that all of the stuff that’s currently in the AA will eventually come out, just not in a court setting. Judge cannot backtrack once he opens Pandora’s box.

How soon would the trial be if Barry is bound over? If the legal teams don’t have time now to work on redactions now, how will they have time in the 7 days after the hearing? If I use the argument about a fair trial, that AA will still be out there in time to taint a jury pool.

With the new victim rights law, could we be talking about people like the poor neighbor who ended up in the thick of a murder? Are they concerned for her as she might be a very important witness? Is she somewhat reluctant at this point to deal with what could happen to her life once the AA comes out?
Yes Barry absolutely ruined the solitude of the neighbor already.
Yet, I am confident she knows she is the least of the victims.
 
  • #379
It appears BM does not have high ethics, so I would think, he had not contacted an inspector for this work.
We have seen how dodgy he is, and we'll find more about his dishonesty in the AA.
Except JP mentions in the latest interview with Lauren that the inspector did show up on Monday.
 
  • #380
How many victims are allowed to peruse the AA before the general public? Are the siblings of Suzanne also considered victims? How about her step brother who clearly loved and treasured her? Someone asked a version of this last night, but I didn't see an answer.

If the court is going to produce documents as they did yesterday, how can they omit the definition of "victim"?
I never got the impression that his daughters were able to read the arrest warrant before anyone else not connected legally to the case. The judge explicitly laid out who would have access. As far as both extended families I assume they don’t fall into the Colorado victim code but I might deep dive that tonight. They are all “victims” in the broadest sense of the word but perhaps not victims in the legal sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
1,019
Total visitors
1,157

Forum statistics

Threads
632,401
Messages
18,625,924
Members
243,135
Latest member
AgentMom
Back
Top