Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #62 *ARREST*

[rainbowshummingbird]

True, but if by a wild chance the prosecution needed that video then Tyson Draper's credibility comes into play when the defense questions him....legal or not what he did. It probably isn't going to be a positive character trait with some member of the jury that he did what he did so why go there. I personally don't think either side "needs" the video if it's a matter of Barry repeating what he told LE.

True, Tyson didn’t turn off a camera when asked, but then he wasn’t obligated to turn it off. As far as character goes, it’s not like Tyson murdered anyone.

 

[10ofRods]

TD's Recording w BM?
@TIGER0822
1. Is TD's recording admissible as evd in BM's crim trial? Imo likely.
But before it is admitted and shown to jury, atty must "lay the foundation" by
calling TD to the witness stand to testify under oath to authenticate audio-video recording, as being a true and accurate representation of their conversation & actions shown that day & place, that the vid has not been edited (& other tedious details omitted from courtroom scenes in Law & Order episodes) etc. In pre-trial hearings, atty's may argue about admissibility of some parts & the purposes for which the vid is offered, etc. Likely admitted imo.

2. I'm reading ^ post as asking if def atty objects to admission of recording -
---- on grounds BM did not consent to being recorded, how a judge would rule? Per info below* BM’s non-consent to being recorded does not present an issue as to admissibility, so imo, objection overruled.
---- on grounds, after BM asked/told TD to stop recording, that TD lied by saying he stopped but instead continued recording, how a judge would rule? TD’s lie on the recording does not preclude the recording from being admitted as evidence of BM’s stmts on the recording. Imo, objection overruled.

3. TD’s Stmt on Vid
I recall reading differences of opinion about exactly what BM & TD said & did, but tbh I cannot say I recall/heard all their stmts accurately.
If, if, if TD told BM, he stopped recording but continued - IOW TD lied - def atty can use TD’s lie then, to attack TD's credibility now/at trial, imo.

Welcoming comment, clarification, correction, esp’ly from legal professionals. my2ct.
____________________________________
* CO law, info on recording convo's, from private law firm websites.
"Is recording in-person conversations legal in Colorado?
“People in Colorado may secretly record their in-person conversations in Colorado. They can take audio or video recordings of a conversation they have with someone else, whether in private or a public place."
^ Does Colorado Have A One Party Consent Statute?
Some posters referenced CO 'one-party' statute as permitting recording a convo, but respectfully iiuc, that concerns "telephone conversations" and "electronic communications."
See Secretly Tape Recording Conversations in Colorado | Denver Criminal Lawyer and CO. R. S. 18-9-303. Wiretapping prohibited – penalty

Per above, TD recording his in-person convo w BM was not criminal. Likewise if TD had talked w BM in a telephone conversation & made a recording, that would not have been a criminal act.
Also, even if a person making an audio-video recording had done so unlawfully, I don't know that such a recording would be inadmissible in a crim trial for purposes of proving stmts made by one of the parties in the convo.

I'm trying to imagine what the defense would do with Mr. Darden - probably have a field day.

I'm curious. Would the prosecutor want to use the TD tape of BM? Why? What does it say to support a finding that BM committed murder after deliberation?

Great questions.

I can't think of a single thing in that video that would be needed at trial.

 

[10ofRods]

Ultimately, @10ofRods is right that the defense will be pressing to exclude evidence referred to in the AA. In fact, the judge's decision strongly suggests they have already raised issues of relevance and admissibility with which the judge is inclined to agree. We don't know all the issues that have been raised, but we know the motions to suppress and limit evidence are coming.

I doubt the CCSO lied to BM. I't just hard to imagine a scenario where it would be seen as helpful. And Miranda warnings only apply to statements made after a suspect is in custody - BM made no statements we know of after his arrest.

But as @NinjaBunny points out, it's police misconduct - coercing a confession out of a suspect in custody - that leads to an exclusion order, and not every act of "strategic deception" by police is treated by the courts as coercive. In the famous case of Frazier v. Cupp the police told the suspect falsely that his co-defendant had confessed and implicated him. The Supreme Court, looking at the totality of the circumstances, did not find Frazier's subsequent confession to be involuntary under the Constitutional standard.

There have been other cases since, where police deceived a suspect into confessions or other "statements against interest," which are otherwise admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule [CRE 804(b)(3)], and where the Supreme Court declined to exclude them from evidence. Police have crossed the line when they induced a confession by making a false promise of leniency, or when they told a suspect what he says won't be admissible in evidence. But @10ofRods is right to say the line isn't clear, and the issue is commonly raised on appeal. Here's an article I found that will give you a sense of the issues that seem to constrain the courts in developing a clearer line - Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far is Too Far?

The Brits have banned lying as an interrogation technique. I looked for some indication that Colorado has taken a similar stance, but found none. At least one Colorado practitioner says there is no bright line rule.

My personal opinion is that the voluntariness of BM's statements to investigators will not be a big issue in this case. The focus of the arguments will be statements to others that are too remote in time to prove or disprove a fact in the case, statements by SM that are arguably not exceptions to the hearsay rule, and statements that arguably paint a negative picture of BM's character without making murder after deliberation more likely.

Thank you SO much for going into this with thoroughness. My takeaway is that even without a Miranda warning, if Barry talked to LE, it's admissible (but could be challenged on appeal).

Does it make a difference if what Barry said was not a confession? I mean, what if he just stated a bunch of things that can be shown to be untrue? ("never had a cooler," then cooler is plainly seen on some CCTV or something).

If Barry did outright incriminate himself in some way, during his interrogation, might the Court disallow that?

 

[kshultz06082]

I am going to preface this with MOO and IMO. It is also not a statement of judgement or disparaging SM's character. I think she was the epitome of kind, compassionate and empathetic.

The text that MM received from SM on Friday was alarming but not in a way of SM's life being threatened? She was not afraid (according to MM), she did not fear for her life or she would have done something. She said it was lengthy, transparent, honest, revealing... MM's response was "I need to pray about this". Why would she delete it? Why would she be so concerned about it getting into the wrong hands? She didn't speak to BM. Really think about that.

To me, maybe SM had met someone that she had interest in. Her marraige had eroded so vastly and her health had just begun to turn around. Maybe she finally believed she deserved better. I believe she deserved to have someone that cherished her. To me, this explains so much about the text. No cause for immediate alarm, giving it strong consideration by her big sister, deleting it as to ensure nobody else sees it. Rage by BM after uncovering something that threatened him, the girls not really speaking out, the Motion by the Judge claiming the girls are victims. I am not saying there was infidelity on her part. The interview certainly spells out there was on BM's part. However, maybe she met someone that she had interest in...

Again, please don't shoot the messenger. It's simply an opinion based on all of the pieces of the puzzle. Much of this case makes no sense, this would explain many of those things. One of many possible scenarios.

It certainly seems more than likely on BM's part but I had never considered the other side as well.


79:48
was sensing
79:50
before all of this even occurred yes
79:54
i'd be happy to chris um
79:59
it was friday
80:03
may the 8th um suzanne
80:06
that morning had sent me a very lengthy
80:08
text
80:10
i won't go into the content that is um
80:12
given
80:13
over to the authorities but i can give
80:15
you a general sense
80:17
of um the text and and what it said to
80:20
me
80:21
uh it was a very lengthy text you know
80:23
when it comes in those chunks and it
80:25
just keeps rolling
80:26
and it was significant i
80:29
uh it was it kind of came as a surprise
80:32
um because there was nothing of our
80:35
conversations that led up to this so it
80:37
was just
80:37
kind of like boom and uh i read the text
80:41
that morning
80:42
and i was um
80:46
i wasn't shocked i've always known i
80:48
mean suzanne and i
80:50
let's let's just say this
80:54
let's say it this way i'll use my
80:56
mother's words
80:59
my mother used to say over the many
81:02
years
81:02
she'd say i'd never believe i'd have
81:06
two daughters who would marry men who
81:08
were so much alike
81:10
i'll just leave it at that okay so
81:13
suzanne and i
81:14
had a a journeys together
81:17
we had intuitive journeys we had
81:20
unspoken journeys
81:23
um we identified a lot
81:26
we identified a lot that morning i got
81:30
this
81:30
text and
81:33
[Music]
81:36
i was i was not surprised because i felt
81:40
the secrecy the the quietness the
81:42
isolation i could see these things
81:45
developing and i knew that suzanne was
81:48
doing her work in eleanor
81:49
she continued and and she she had told
81:53
a friend of ours that it was the best
81:55
decision she ever made and she was so
81:57
glad i had
81:58
encouraged her to do that you know it
82:00
was good work
82:01
good work for her yeah definitely um
82:05
so that that i'm i'm so grateful for um
82:09
but that morning that text was was so
82:12
transparent
82:13
it was raw uh there was there
82:16
was not a cry for help there was no uh
82:19
i'm in danger there was none of that
82:21
you know i would have immediately gone
82:24
into action
82:25
but it was it was a very transparent
82:28
text
82:28
which told me and and has told the
82:31
authorities her state of mind
82:33
that morning it's very clear uh it's a
82:37
powerful text
82:38
and it was so powerful at the time
82:41
that this was going to sound funny but
82:45
i have accidentally in the past
82:47
forwarded the wrong text to the wrong
82:48
person have you ever done that
82:50
thinking you're forwarding this to that
82:52
person and it goes to the wrong person
82:55
you should see me drive we are okay okay
82:58
so
82:58
so that was the one of the first things
83:00
i thought of i thought
83:02
oh i i can't leave this on my phone
83:06
i could accidentally text that to the
83:09
wrong person
83:10
and i don't want that to fall in the
83:11
wrong hands so it went into my heart
83:14
and i decided i would delete that text
83:17
and but
83:18
before i did i had texted her
83:20
immediately back
83:21
and i had said to her i need to pray
83:23
about this because i want to respond
83:25
correctly
83:26
it wasn't going to be shoot from the hip
83:28
big sister it was going to be
83:30
you need some real wisdom here you know
83:33
on how to
83:34
help her navigate and like i said it
83:37
wasn't wasn't she wasn't in danger
83:40
that would have been easy to do but i
83:42
wanted to be thoughtful in my
83:44
response to her and and respectful of
83:47
who she is
83:49
so um she's she said i'll read you the
83:53
last text she sent me because i still
83:54
have it on my phone
83:56
her response back to me just a minute i
83:58
want to say it exactly i don't
84:00
i don't want to what time did the text
84:04
come in that morning if you remember
84:07
just a minute i'll tell you because i've
84:08
got the um
84:10
her response um
84:14
i responded to her at 11 35 a.m
84:17
that was tennessee time and uh
84:20
it came she immediately came back um
84:24
i told her i said i'm going to pray
84:25
before responding further i care
84:28
and she responded immediately within one
84:31
minute she said i appreciate your love
84:33
and transparency always and that was the
84:36
last thing
84:37
my sister ever said to me
84:40
and i keep that text i cherish that text
84:43
from her
84:44
and i texted her one day at a time i
84:47
said one day at a time
84:49
so that was that was the only thing i
84:52
responded to her at that moment
84:53
and i i really didn't have a response
84:57
for her
84:58
um and it is my it is my belief as her
85:01
sister
85:02
uh saturday was a very hard day for me
85:06
uh that night when i went to bed i had
85:09
an unbelievable grief that came over me
85:12
and i did and i didn't know why i i did
85:15
not
85:16
know why and my my devotion for that day
85:20
was from the book of job uh which i read
85:24
that night and it says the lord the lord
85:27
giveth and the lord taketh blessed be
85:29
the name of the lord
85:31
and it was all all about learning to
85:34
praise god when things are not the way
85:36
we want
85:37
you know not just when we get it the way
85:39
we want it but
85:41
sometimes we learn to we learn to thank
85:43
god and be grateful when we don't get
85:44
what we want
85:46
and and it was um that night was very
85:48
difficult and
85:49
another friend of hers had a similar
85:51
experience on saturday night
85:53
and it is my belief that my sister went
85:56
on to be with the lord on saturday night
85:58
and um that's that's what i feel in my
86:02
heart
86:02
and saturday night or friday night
86:06
well i believe
86:10
saturday but
86:13
we'll wait to see we'll wait to see
86:16
we'll wait to see
86:16
all right we intuitively

Linked to MM interview.

I have considered this possibility too, not related to the text sent to MM, but now that makes sense too, but when police asked for people that have spoken to SM on the social apps to come forward I suspected that was directed at a male friend. I truly don't think that makes SM a bad person in any way. I think her marriage was in shambles, BM was probably cheating, she was planning to leave, she was probably very lonely. Regardless, its not an excuse to murder someone or a reason to be murdered. Jmo

 

[al66pine]

I'm trying to imagine what the defense would do with Mr. Darden - probably have a field day. ...

@10ofRods A good question. I watched the vid only back when TD did podcast, so I need to watch the vid again to refresh my memory of BM's &TD's stmts.

 

[jakat]

Ah, I must have seen an early edited version. But regardless if it lines up with Barry's original story to LE there probably isn't much there to use either by the prosecution or the defense in my opinion. If it's different than what he told LE that would be interesting and perhaps something the prosecution might find interesting. I'm convinced neither side wants to put the YouTube person on the stand however unless prosecution does and it's Barry's defense grilling him on why he was in Salida (and continued to return sporadically) and to throw shade at him for not turning off his camera when asked.

When I tried to share the link here, it didn't show the words 'uncut/unedited' which are there under the video.

Actually, I don't see why the prosecution would use the video, either. There doesn't seem to be much there. Just my opinion.

Ugh, not getting my messages across. I think I need a nap today.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

The only value of the video is if it shows inconsistency. If Barry has held firm in his interviews with LE there really isn't anything new and the video has less value. The only inconsistency that I'm aware of that is publicly available is the error of omission in the timeline that he "confessed" to Lauren. If there is anything else publicly available to cite that contradicts what was said in the video I'm all ears (or eyes).

 

[MsBetsy]

I'm trying to imagine what the defense would do with Mr. Darden - probably have a field day.



Great questions.

I can't think of a single thing in that video that would be needed at trial.

I can't think of anything either. I think BM would have been consistent with what he told LE when he spoke to Tyson, as far as the time he left and the "plan" for the day.

 

[jakat]

The video TD recorded of him talking to BM.

Did BM owe TD the truth in any of the statements he made to him? I don't see how that video would be valuable in any court proceedings. I see TD as just a guy in passing in this chance encounter. It could have been me. Did BM owe me true statements? I don't think so. IMO

I agree with you.

 

[DizzyB]

I think the one thing that the TD video did was reinforce what many were already thinking. First came the 26 second plea, which raised a lot of eyebrows. Hinkometers went off. Then Barry chats up a random stranger, supplying him with details and matter of factly discussing his wife’s abduction by a predatory animal, along with his buddy’s 400 tours. I doubt any of it will be part of the court proceedings, but I don’t think Barry did himself any favors with LE by talking to TD.
Could LE have asked questions that came about based on Barry’s discussion with TD? Barry seemed to have a lot of theories and maybe LE used the essence of that to grill Barry? Would Barry tell them he was lying to a guy, or would he defend his statements on the record? More than one way to skin the Cat.

 

[Ericthered]

True, Tyson didn’t turn off a camera when asked, but then he wasn’t obligated to turn it off. As far as character goes, it’s not like Tyson murdered anyone.

Tyson was not asked to turn anything off, just to “put it away.” The Colorado laws will allow this to come into evidence, and I am 100% confident that this video will be pivotal with regards to what Barry told LE and what he states in this video. There’s a reason Tyson was receiving threats once he posted it. LE watched this like it was a million dollar lottery being announced, you can bet this will be introduced and pivotal. Especially when Barry says “I’ve been cleared.” When he hadn’t. And, he stated he last saw Suzanne at 5am asleep, but in the Tyson video he says he spoke with her.

 

[JosieMae]

For me, the most telling part of the TD video is when BM begins to describe how the bike landed in the ravine. Remember how BM abruptly stopped and changed the subject?

"Let me show you what happened."

 

[TKG]

True, Tyson didn’t turn off a camera when asked, but then he wasn’t obligated to turn it off. As far as character goes, it’s not like Tyson murdered anyone.

We may we dealing with creme of the crap here. TD was instrumental in getting people involved and keeping the case in the public eye. Not sure either is of stellar character, it's just which is worse? Definitely BM, we know he only lies if his lips are moving.

 

[TKG]

For me, the most telling part of the TD video is when BM begins to describe how the bike landed in the ravine. Remember how BM abruptly stopped and changed the subject?

"Let me show you what happened."

Exactly, when he arrived the bike was no longer down there. How did he know?

Spoiler: How did he know?

Pants on fire.

 

[SouthAussie]

Exactly, when he arrived the bike was no longer down there. How did he know?

Spoiler: How did he know?

Pants on fire.

Hahaha ... I love the little spoiler alerts. I dont know how you do them, but they are great.

 

[SouthAussie]

I think LE will have a heck of a lot more proof than a conversation with TD.
They can't throw every little thing into the trial for fear of losing the attention of the jury. There is a thing called TMI. Keep it as concise as you can, have good proof, and hit hard.
So unless there is something crucial in there, it will be evident that BM lied about a lot of things when they prove that he is a killer.

imo

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Exactly, when he arrived the bike was no longer down there. How did he know?

Spoiler: How did he know?

Pants on fire.

I assumed when he got there at 9 someone told him and that is what he claimed from then on.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

We may we dealing with creme of the crap here. TD was instrumental in getting people involved and keeping the case in the public eye. Not sure either is of stellar character, it's just which is worse? Definitely BM, we know he only lies if his lips are moving.

Creme of the crap? LOL Gonna have to borrow that one

 

[K9Enzo]

Creme of the crap? LOL Gonna have to borrow that one

I want to buy @TKG a drink for that one.

 

[nyvictoria]

If he did lie to LE, then the Supreme Court's "trustworthiness" doctrine goes out the window. If LE lied to him, I'll bet many donuts that his lawyers will argue (on appeal) that this is a form of coercion, so I sure hope they didn't.

I too assume Barry exaggerated - but then again, maybe not. From 9 pm Sunday until the next morning, LE was there and Barry was presumably there. That's 12 hours right there, which he was probably counting. Another 8 hours on Tuesday would not be unusual, and given that Suzanne was still missing on Wednesday, I suspect by. then, LE had way more questions for him.

Spezze said at the first press conference that "Barry was cooperating," and that he hoped it would continue. An ordinary deputy who ran into Andy would have almost no way of knowing - except he probably heard that Barry refused a polygraph. Where he heard that, though, I don't know, but it was reported on PE and is definitely what is believed by Salidans.

We wait until August to find out. The lies to LE would have come way before the lies to Lauren and Andy, and surely, Barry did lie to LE in those first few days.

I may be misunderstanding what type of lying on the part of LE you’re talking about but LE lie to suspects all the time. They tell them they have witnesses, evidence that doesn’t exist, information they don’t really have, etc. Miranda should be read, understood and acknowledged before every interview. I don’t believe LE can lie and misrepresent who they are. They can’t tell a suspect they’re an attorney or otherwise portray themselves as anyone other than LE. They can’t make empty promises, such as, “Tell me what happened and we’ll let you go home,” or “If you’re honest, we won’t prosecute.”

JMO