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

[MsBetsy]

The protection of witnesses is pretty stark. Will he get out on bail?

If the arrest warrant has to be sealed to protect victims and witnesses then should the suspect be allowed out on bond?
Or is the judge just talking about media coverage?

I don't think he can get out on bail, but he still has the ability to communicate with his daughters. They may chose to discuss the information from the affidavit with him or not. At least he won't he able to pressure or intimidate them.

There are also probably still witnesses or family members that support BM. Or there may be witnesses that were supportive of Barry throughout the investigation, but also provided incriminating information to LE.

Just because BM is in jail doesn't meant he can't still communicate with them. Witnesses who support him and those who don't can still talk to each other, and they can still talk to the media. This case doesn't need any more public attention than it already has.

There were several interviews following the arrest. If all the information from the Affidavit is released, I can just imagine the interest the media will have, as well as Youtubers like CM and MK, who have been so invested in this case.

IMO

 

[K9Enzo]

I’m just a girl that trains my pointy eared dogs. I’m no law dog. (ha)

Many of the items being mentioned as to why the AA might be so long (witness interviews, detailed phone records, detailed search warrant, etc). If that’s all in the AA and the cause of the length, then what the heck will be handed over during discovery? There has to be a valid reason it was all pointed out and became part of the court docket.

I’m picturing sentences that detail how many steps BM took to get his mail on a Friday or how many times he blinked on a particular day. Not really, but what wasn’t considered relevant? IMO

 

[kshultz06082]

I don't think hearsay would apply to the conversation that Melinda and Suzanne had. MM was a direct participant in the conversation, not a 3rd party that was just told about the conversation. Just an example to try to explain my thinking: MM & SM speak/text and MM shares what SM told her with one of Suzanne's other siblings (let's say Andy just to make things easier). So, MM calls AM and says hey I'm worried about SM cuz she told me she is scared of BM. When they are later questioned by LE, MM shares the conversation that she had with SM. Then LE talks to AM and he says yea, MM told me SM said she was scared of BM. AM was not a participant in the original conversation, therefore, he is a 3rd party hearing about what SM said and cannot be sure that that is exactly whatSM said. However, MM had the original conversation directly with SM and now SM isn't here to speak, so the only way to hear SMs words is thru the person she said them to. If hearsay applied, the courts would never be able to use any testimony from witnesses about things told to them by a victim or even a defendant. Jmo

Another example to explain my thoughts: In the Vallow case, Melanie Gibb was called by both CD & LVD on the day of the wellbeing check and was told to say that JJ was with her. She can testify (and has) to what they (CD&LVD) said to her because she was a direct participant in the conversations. However, if she told her boyfriend, DW, about the phone calls and what was said, he can't testify about it because he was not a participant in the calls, so his knowledge of the conversation are second hand thru MG.

Hopefully I am making sense. These are just my thoughts, speculations and a hypothetical scenario or 2.

 

[Scootie98]

Perhaps it doesn't matter if JP was in prison or why he was there. Prisoners often take the stand in cases: Happened in the FL Teresa Seivers' murder and in the FL Professor Dan Markel case, by example.

I expect the trial transcriptionist to ask JP to slow down bc she can't transcribe as fast as he can talk. That is, if he takes the stand.

Some criminals are more trustworthy than the average Joe or Jane.

I think the DA will prove Barry secreted his wife's body. That in itself will give Barry enough time behind bars that he'll never climb those gorgeous Rockies to hunt again.

Barry must discredit all witnesses which are hostile to the defense. However, he will have to "splain" why he trusted the meth head and the jail bird enough to hire them and put them on a job site without his presence....if they lacked credibility. After all...he handpicked both of them. All witnesses will be discredited except the daughters. However, they may prove to be more help to the prosecution than the defense...unwilllingly...as they are an integral piece of the timeline. How convenient that they are gone and provide just the needed window for SM's disappearance?

 

[clearskies1]

I don't think hearsay would apply to the conversation that Melinda and Suzanne had. MM was a direct participant in the conversation, not a 3rd party that was just told about the conversation. Just an example to try to explain my thinking: MM & SM speak/text and MM shares what SM told her with one of Suzanne's other siblings (let's say Andy just to make things easier). So, MM calls AM and says hey I'm worried about SM cuz she told me she is scared of BM. When they are later questioned by LE, MM shares the conversation that she had with SM. Then LE talks to AM and he says yea, MM told me SM said she was scared of BM. AM was not a participant in the original conversation, therefore, he is a 3rd party hearing about what SM said and cannot be sure that that is exactly whatSM said. However, MM had the original conversation directly with SM and now SM isn't here to speak, so the only way to hear SMs words is thru the person she said them to. If hearsay applied, the courts would never be able to use any testimony from witnesses about things told to them by a victim or even a defendant. Jmo

Another example to explain my thoughts: In the Vallow case, Melanie Gibb was called by both CD & LVD on the day of the wellbeing check and was told to say that JJ was with her. She can testify (and has) to what they (CD&LVD) said to her because she was a direct participant in the conversations. However, if she told her boyfriend, DW, about the phone calls and what was said, he can't testify about it because he was not a participant in the calls, so his knowledge of the conversation are second hand thru MG.

Hopefully I am making sense. These are just my thoughts, speculations and a hypothetical scenario or 2.

This is my understanding: The hearsay rule applies when a party is trying to offer an out of court statement made by someone other than the defendant (e.g., any statement that SM may have made that her marriage was horrible and that she was scared) to prove the truth of what the person said (e.g., that the marriage really was horrible and that she really was scared). That out of court statement is not admissible unless the person who said it (not the person who heard it) is testifying and can be cross examined about the truth of it. There are exceptions to that rule i.e., a dying declaration, an excited utterance etc., where there is generally more belief that the statement will be credible. If the alleged out of court statement is not offered for the "truth" of what was allegedly said, but to show something else (eg., why a witness did something) then it is not hearsay. JMO.

 

[Error505]

BBM, do we know this was just an accusation?

I’m not sure it’s just an “accusation” as we are not allowed to sleuth JP. Therefore, can’t do a criminal bkgrd check on him. I don’t think JP has offered up his criminal history in an interview yet. BM is a known liar, I take everything he says with a grain of salt. MOO

 

[Error505]

Although the public doesn't have access to the AA yet, BM does. He can read it now. So I don't think the decision to seal the AA is related to BM potentially getting out on bail. JMO.

I had a good chuckle with this post bc it reminds me BM can read the DA’s AA about his crime. Barry, does this make for some relaxing bedtime reading? Where’s the “love of your life”, Barry Morphew? MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

BBM, do we know this was just an accusation?

To me, it's neither here nor there - the only reason BM ever said it in the first place was from a defensive position to trash JP's credibility.

 

[CGray123]

<snipped for focus>

Barry can use the money he got from Suzanne for his legal problems because he hasn’t been convicted or pled guilty yet. I don’t know if he had any life insurance on her; if he did they demand for it to be paid back (slayer rule).

MOO, but I don't believe BM can use the money from the sales of the jointly held assets for his own personal expenses. He sold them under his power as SM's conservator, which requires him to conserve them for her benefit. He is accountable to the court for his use of this money, which is both all hers and all his if you can get your mind around that idea.

His daughters, as SM's heirs, have legal standing to petition the courts in Colorado and Indiana to remove BM as conservator, force him to account for this money, and close off all opportunity to spend it on himself. Others, (AM, MM) may also have standing to petition, but the judges may well look to the daughters anyway.

I sometimes wonder if these judges could take judicial notice of the murder charge and act on their own motion to remove BM as conservator. They may not know about the case, but someone could let them know.

BM may well be incapable of Christian love, but he can pretend in order to manipulate. Such a person would want to keep the daughters on side for no other reason than to continue to control the money. So far, so good, but I think Judge Murphy has given them a few weeks of freedom from BM to reflect on their path forward and what they must do to move on. They have a loving, Christian extended family on their mother's side, and I hope they seek comfort and counsel there.

 

[fcavanaugh]

I’m wondering if the length of the AA is due to something like LE got tipped off that BM was getting ready to leave the country prompting them to have to make an immediate arrest before they had a chance to edit/make the final “cuts” to the draft of the AA, i.e., preventing the suspect from leaving the country outweighed the need to streamline the AA before making an arrest. IOW, LE’s hand was forced to prevent BM from fleeing, and before they had the chance to consult with the Prosecutor one last time for guidance about which “stuff” needed to go on the cutting room floor before the final production, as they say in the film industry.

The reason I was thinking this as a possibility is I think LE was likely following BM hoping he’d lead them to SM’s remains’ location. LE felt BM wasn’t a threat to the public/community and thought they had time to see if/hoping
BM led them to SM’s remains. LE/DA usually want to locate the person’s body/remains to further prove their case as that is the strongest piece of evidence that someone is deceased, and to give family answers, so they can lay their loved one to rest properly, with dignity.
In a nutshell, LE learned BM was getting ready to do a runner, had to move in quickly and arrest sooner than expected.
Just a thought.

All of the above is speculation and MOO.

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

ETA-words, punctuation

 

[CGray123]

IMO, defense counsel don't "destroy" witnesses in the sense that the witness has a breakdown on the stand, or becomes totally incredible. But humans are imperfect. We all have our own "lived truth" which may include bias and prejudice. We all have personal and financial interests we want to protect. Our memories are not always reliable. Most of us have done things we regret, that would cause another person (juror) not to trust us. When these human flaws affect our testimony, skilled defense counsel can bring them out and use them to suggest that our testimony should not be believed, or that a crucial factual allegation is not really supported as the prosecution suggests.

 

[Error505]

MOO, but I don't believe BM can use the money from the sales of the jointly held assets for his own personal expenses. He sold them under his power as SM's conservator, which requires him to conserve them for her benefit. He is accountable to the court for his use of this money, which is both all hers and all his if you can get your mind around that idea.

His daughters, as SM's heirs, have legal standing to petition the courts in Colorado and Indiana to remove BM as conservator, force him to account for this money, and close off all opportunity to spend it on himself. Others, (AM, MM) may also have standing to petition, but the judges may well look to the daughters anyway.

I sometimes wonder if these judges could take judicial notice of the murder charge and act on their own motion to remove BM as conservator. They may not know about the case, but someone could let them know.

BM may well be incapable of Christian love, but he can pretend in order to manipulate. Such a person would want to keep the daughters on side for no other reason than to continue to control the money. So far, so good, but I think Judge Murphy has given them a few weeks of freedom from BM to reflect on their path forward and what they must do to move on. They have a loving, Christian extended family on their mother's side, and I hope they seek comfort and counsel there.

Good post.
BBM I had the same question several threads back when BM was first arrested. I wondered if the CO judge who signed off on the guardianship could/would take judicial action in his capacity to remove BM as guardian. I would think SM’s brothers and sister would have standing in IN (if the daughters choose not to being action) to bring some action, especially since GM passed away after BM was granted guardianship in that state. There may be inheritance still to be determined from GM’s estate.
LS reported the daughters moved out of the condo. I’m not sure if BM’s mother is with them in CO or not. I do worry about both of them. MOO
EBM clarification

 

[Error505]

I’m wondering if the length of the AA is due to something like LE got tipped off that BM was getting ready to leave the country prompting them to have to make an immediate arrest before they had a chance to edit/make the final “cuts” to the draft of the AA, i.e., preventing the suspect from leaving the country outweighed the need to streamline the AA before making an arrest. IOW, LE’s hand was forced to prevent BM from fleeing, and before they had the chance to consult with the Prosecutor one last time for guidance about which “stuff” needed to go on the cutting room floor before the final production, as they say in the film industry.

The reason I was thinking this as a possibility is I think LE was likely following BM hoping he’d lead them to SM’s remains’ location. They usually want the person’s body/remains to further prove their case as that is the strongest piece of evidence someone is deceased, and to give family answers and so their loved one can be laid to rest properly.
In a nutshell, LE learned BM was getting ready to do a runner, and had to move in and arrest sooner than expected.
Just a thought.

All of the above is speculation and MOO.

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

That’s a very valid thought, FC.
Speeze nor the DA had the written charges with them at the press conference @ 3:00 the day BM was arrested, like maybe the charges were being finalized or something. Also, the original charges filed were amended the same day to add DV for sentence enhancement, maybe in a hurry and it was inadvertently left out to begin with. Makes one wonder in MOO.

 

[OldCop]

I don't think hearsay would apply to the conversation that Melinda and Suzanne had. MM was a direct participant in the conversation, not a 3rd party that was just told about the conversation. Just an example to try to explain my thinking: MM & SM speak/text and MM shares what SM told her with one of Suzanne's other siblings (let's say Andy just to make things easier). So, MM calls AM and says hey I'm worried about SM cuz she told me she is scared of BM. When they are later questioned by LE, MM shares the conversation that she had with SM. Then LE talks to AM and he says yea, MM told me SM said she was scared of BM. AM was not a participant in the original conversation, therefore, he is a 3rd party hearing about what SM said and cannot be sure that that is exactly whatSM said. However, MM had the original conversation directly with SM and now SM isn't here to speak, so the only way to hear SMs words is thru the person she said them to. If hearsay applied, the courts would never be able to use any testimony from witnesses about things told to them by a victim or even a defendant. Jmo

Another example to explain my thoughts: In the Vallow case, Melanie Gibb was called by both CD & LVD on the day of the wellbeing check and was told to say that JJ was with her. She can testify (and has) to what they (CD&LVD) said to her because she was a direct participant in the conversations. However, if she told her boyfriend, DW, about the phone calls and what was said, he can't testify about it because he was not a participant in the calls, so his knowledge of the conversation are second hand thru MG.

Hopefully I am making sense. These are just my thoughts, speculations and a hypothetical scenario or 2.

You are making total sense, @kschultz06082. The problem here is that the “conversation” is in text form rather than a direct oral conversation. The defense will claim that anyone could have written that text and the prosecution will need to prove it was Suzanne who wrote it. MOO

 

[Murphy1950]

You are making total sense, @kschultz06082. The problem here is that the “conversation” is in text form rather than a direct oral conversation. The defense will claim that anyone could have written that text and the prosecution will need to prove it was Suzanne who wrote it. MOO

Tech dinosaur here...asking for help/clarification, not challenging.

Do we know..is it the device that allows recovery of all Suzanne's history of texts? or is that sitting on a cloud???Do they need the actual phone?

I'm not sure that we are there yet, but it would seem a writing style and vocabulary would be as pertinent as a signature. Hence the art of handwriting analysis. Handwriting analysis is admissible as as evidence.


Noted that in Letecia Stauch AA(page 20) they feel she used Gannon's phone for certain searches because she had the peculiar habit of adding "." before a search, Gannon didn't.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I too imagine that the overly lengthy document was to make them feel more secure a judge would sign off on the warrant and yes I imagine the submittal, even if it was put together a while back was sent in haste to prevent having to deal with potential extradition in the future and because there is a new prosecutor with a new agenda. Time will tell if this was the best possible plan. It will all depend on how buttoned up their case is within legal boundaries. Trials are not “we think”, trials are “we know.”

 

[MsBetsy]

Tech dinosaur here...asking for help/clarification, not challenging.

Do we know..is it the device that allows recovery of all Suzanne's history of texts? or is that sitting on a cloud???Do they need the actual phone?

I'm not sure that we are there yet, but it would seem a writing style and vocabulary would be as pertinent as a signature. Hence the art of handwriting analysis is acceptable as testimony I read elsewhere.

Noted that in Letecia Stauch AA(page 20) they feel she used Gannon's phone for certain searches because she had the peculiar habit of adding "." before a search, Gannon didn't.

I don't think they need the actual phone, as long as they can retrieve the cellphone data through the phone company. I would think the same would be true for FB or other SM. Although LE mentioned a particular App and wanted to speak to anyone who had communicated with Suzanne using it. I can't remember what it was called. I'm not a tech person either but maybe it's harder to find those messages. Imo

 

[DetectiveFoyleWannabe]

I don't think hearsay would apply to the conversation that Melinda and Suzanne had. MM was a direct participant in the conversation, not a 3rd party that was just told about the conversation. Just an example to try to explain my thinking: MM & SM speak/text and MM shares what SM told her with one of Suzanne's other siblings (let's say Andy just to make things easier). So, MM calls AM and says hey I'm worried about SM cuz she told me she is scared of BM. When they are later questioned by LE, MM shares the conversation that she had with SM. Then LE talks to AM and he says yea, MM told me SM said she was scared of BM. AM was not a participant in the original conversation, therefore, he is a 3rd party hearing about what SM said and cannot be sure that that is exactly whatSM said. However, MM had the original conversation directly with SM and now SM isn't here to speak, so the only way to hear SMs words is thru the person she said them to. If hearsay applied, the courts would never be able to use any testimony from witnesses about things told to them by a victim or even a defendant. Jmo

Another example to explain my thoughts: In the Vallow case, Melanie Gibb was called by both CD & LVD on the day of the wellbeing check and was told to say that JJ was with her. She can testify (and has) to what they (CD&LVD) said to her because she was a direct participant in the conversations. However, if she told her boyfriend, DW, about the phone calls and what was said, he can't testify about it because he was not a participant in the calls, so his knowledge of the conversation are second hand thru MG.

Hopefully I am making sense. These are just my thoughts, speculations and a hypothetical scenario or 2.

That isn’t how the hearsay rule works though. It is about SM’s statement and not whether Mm directly heard it. SM is not available for cross examination. As I mentioned in an earlier post however, if SM’s statement was regarding a “present sense impression” (ie, Barry is looking at me angrily, or I’m scared etc) this may be an exception to the hearsay rule. I could be wrong of course but I’m a lawyer by trade, although admittedly a civil attorney so no experience in the criminal world. But evidence rules are pretty uniform in terms of hearsay etc.

 

[Charlot123]

I’m just a girl that trains my pointy eared dogs. I’m no law dog. (ha)

Many of the items being mentioned as to why the AA might be so long (witness interviews, detailed phone records, detailed search warrant, etc). If that’s all in the AA and the cause of the length, then what the heck will be handed over during discovery? There has to be a valid reason it was all pointed out and became part of the court docket.

I’m picturing sentences that detail how many steps BM took to get his mail on a Friday or how many times he blinked on a particular day. Not really, but what wasn’t considered relevant? IMO

I think in the absence of the body, more and more collateral evidence is needed. Hence, more and more documents to prove the case is beyond a reasonable doubt. JMO. I might be wrong, of course.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I think in the absence of the body, more and more collateral evidence is needed. Hence, more and more documents to prove the case is beyond a reasonable doubt. JMO. I might be wrong, of course.

More doesn't mean anything if the content is inadmissible at trial. Plus in most cases an arrest warrant contains just enough to get the judge to sign a warrant. Makes you wonder if they were shaky about getting a warrant signed so they figured more is better regardless. And they got the warrant but it's a trial that counts. Next step the preliminary where presumably the prosecution will tighten up the case. The judge knows what's up. I like the judge so far.