Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #63 *ARREST*

[Alethea]

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/21CR78 Order Limit Public Redacted.pdf
Are you referring to this paragraph? Apologies if not, but this is the language that I am struggling with. The judge’s ruling is specific to the release of the AA, right? How would they have time to review, or choose not to review the evidence, if the AA is not available to them?

He means they should have the opportunity to review (or decline to review) the evidence as it is litigated and introduced at trial as is standard practice in criminal cases. The daughters can, at that time, decide to show up and support their father as the case is made against him or take a long trip out of the country and avoid hearing anything about it.

The arrest affidavit is not evidence. He is explaining that. Having the state give a 126 page "preview" of trial a year before any trial is set to being is unprecedented. The judge is concerned that the daughters will have to face this nightmare twice - once when the media turns the AA story into a circus and again at the actual trial when actual evidence is introduced and the defendant is tried.

 

[TKG]

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/21CR78 Order Limit Public Redacted.pdf
Are you referring to this paragraph? Apologies if not, but this is the language that I am struggling with. The judge’s ruling is specific to the release of the AA, right? How would they have time to review, or choose not to review the evidence, if the AA is not available to them?

Yes, sorry. I reported my comment because the link didn't populate! I appreciate you help!!

 

[CGray123]

The Morphew daughters do not have a statutory right to see the AA. They have only a right to see the "initial incident report". However, this is at the discretion of the law enforcement agency based on the status of the case, or jail security or safety concerns. Section 24-2.1-302.5(1)(b.9), Colorado Revised Statutes.

However, I know from personal experience that some jurisdictions offer significant victim services, including specialized counseling and other meaningful support at public expense. I don't know what the 11th Judicial District of Colorado offers, but I did notice that the DA has a victims' advocate - Janice Veltri. Catholic Charities also has a program that offers financial support designed to meet the needs of crime victims, including counseling. There may be other faith based programs available to the daughters. The ones I accessed are available regardless of income.

I would encourage them to contact Ms. Veltri and see what help is available to cope with the loss of their mother and the likelihood their father killed her after planning to do so, hid her body and took her assets. Aside from protecting themselves from harassment by the sickos who seem to enjoy inflicting additional pain on victims of crime, getting counseling help should be their top priority.

MOO.

 

[24Brix]

I don't know what you mean by "working." The students I know who head toward that goal start with a LinkedIn and participating in various activities that bring them closer to that goal. "Working" implies pay, to me (or college units).

Almost no one here in California who is a "life coach" has a degree in anything like "life coaching" but the bulletin boards have lots of business cards, and people do get clients. Many of them find clients in various organizations or businesses (coffee shops, churches, LinkedIn, Facebook).

"Personal trainer" is a very broad category. "Life coach" is a subcategory of that, IMO. People who can't afford therapists or groups led by therapists go to groups led by "life coaches" (often in teams).

Putting up a LinkedIn is, IMO, the first step toward a freelance career, a consulting career - or a job different than the one you have right now (rare...because your employers find it and are not happy). But if you get fired from that same job, then you activate it.

I don't think you can see "clear indications" of someone's future plans. But it's clear that Suzanne knew what a "life coach" was, was exploring the waters around that term, and included some aspects of "health/fitness" in her interests. People who are charming and successful at whatever it is that the hiring party wants to achieve (fitness, thinness, skincare, family harmony - you name it) can use LinkedIn to get started (but local bulletin boards and coffee shops are still the main way it's done).

I don't live in Salida, so I would never weigh in on whether or not Suzanne was "working" toward a particular life coach goal. But IME, the people who do this are able to "pivot" and do this as only one of the things they are doing...

I’m just jumping off your post, @10ofRods. I’m traveling and don’t have the LI link in front of me. But I have to ask, how do we know that profile was even created by SM? Unlike some of her other social media accounts, the info I can see publicly doesn’t do anything to give me confidence that she created that profile. For me there’s not even a profile pic or a last name. Sometimes I think we shouldn’t even be discussing it. Was that profile originally sourced to us by a relative, LS, PE, or the MSM? For now, I’m putting very little stock in anything I see there, even though I’d very much like to think she had big plans for an independent life… MOO.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

The Morphew daughters do not have a statutory right to see the AA. They have only a right to see the "initial incident report". However, this is at the discretion of the law enforcement agency based on the status of the case, or jail security or safety concerns. Section 24-2.1-302.5(1)(b.9), Colorado Revised Statutes.

However, I know from personal experience that some jurisdictions offer significant victim services, including specialized counseling and other meaningful support at public expense. I don't know what the 11th Judicial District of Colorado offers, but I did notice that the DA has a victims' advocate - Janice Veltri. Catholic Charities also has a program that offers financial support designed to meet the needs of crime victims, including counseling. There may be other faith based programs available to the daughters. The ones I accessed are available regardless of income.

I would encourage them to contact Ms. Veltri and see what help is available to cope with the loss of their mother and the likelihood their father killed her after planning to do so, hid her body and took her assets. Aside from protecting themselves from harassment by the sickos who seem to enjoy inflicting additional pain on victims of crime, getting counseling help should be their top priority.

MOO.

Yes. I have been hoping that they are in counseling already in addition to the support from the person or persons who are currently with them and perhaps they are not even in Colorado which would not be a bad thing. They got alittle taste of it when media banged on their door and social media stalked their accounts, posted nasty things on their grandmother's facebook and all those sorts of things the sickos do. Cases do get dismissed and since we have no shinning light into exactly what the prosecution's case is they will need support either way the preliminary goes and if to trial, then through the trial. The media will "want" their story no matter what the outcome of the preliminary. <modsnip>

 

[Boxer]

I agree. I think SM was making plans for a new, different future. Living with an abusive narcissist (which I think BM is) for half your life, some people will finally wake up. I think moving to CO and being isolated to a degree, while battling this last round of cancer really gave her pause to evaluate her future should she beat the cancer again. BM wasn’t supportive of her during this last bout with cancer, though the daughters were. But they have their own lives. And when you’re home at night or on the weekends when that narcissist is around and no one else, it’s dead silence, walking on eggshells, nasty, demeaning comments from him in his sick need to pump his own ego. I can see SM wanting to do work in the area of supporting women as a life coach or something along those lines. She would have been great. Sad she isn’t around to be of help to people.
Justice for Suzanne can’t come soon enough……
MOO

If she had made it out of the marriage I think she would have been a good life coach and done well.

 

[Born2BWild]

Amen Alethea!
Constitutional rights are not absolute and compete with other constitutional rights. There’s a reason why the United States is so litigious as we call on the courts to settle disputes between competing rights.

 

[CGray123]

I guess BM could share details of the AA with his daughters - from what we heard at the advisement, his exculpatory statements are contained in it. But the daughters would have heard these things during the year of BM's freedom, and I doubt BM could bring himself to share the more damning evidence, including any gruesome details. He wants his daughters on side, and such allegations would shock them and push them away IMO. My guess is that if he talks about the case at all, he will simply remind them that it's all a frame-up as they already "know" and that his lawyers will blow it up in due course.

 

[10ofRods]

I’m just jumping off your post, @10ofRods. I’m traveling and don’t have the LI link in front of me. But I have to ask, how do we know that profile was even created by SM? Unlike some of her other social media accounts, the info I can see publicly doesn’t do anything to give me confidence that she created that profile. For me there’s not even a profile pic or a last name. Sometimes I think we shouldn’t even be discussing it. Was that profile originally sourced to us by a relative, LS, PE, or the MSM? For now, I’m putting very little stock in anything I see there, even though I’d very much like to think she had big plans for an independent life… MOO.

We don't. However, the things she liked and commented on would indicate extensive commitment to a fraudulent account - for a woman who was not at all in the public eye until after her disappearance.

She commented on and liked things going on in Colorado Springs. She liked things related to biking and outdoor fitness.

If that profile is fake, then of course her FB could be fake too, as well as her Twitter. Yet, we've all been using those items here as sources. LinkedIn requires email verification and collects IP information. It would be truly amazing to me if her family allowed that LinkedIn profile to go unchallenged if they thought it wasn't hers.

Suzanne's LInkedIn profile liked items related to cancer recovery, to patient care advocacy, sports medicine and empathy/compassion. Again, lots of likes for Colorado Springs agencies (jobs, etc). Visiting Angels of Southwest Colorado. So whoever built this had to have known Suzanne pretty well (where she lived, that she was dealing with health issues, that she was into fitness, that she read Christian books and books on empathy, etc, etc).

So if this is an impersonation, it is a very good one, consistent with what we know about Suzanne. Who would do that? Who would go to LinkedIn, enter a business name (Sunset Farms) belonging to her and to Barry, and do so at least one year before she went missing?

There's even a like for an article on new kinds of medical research, cancer research in particular, in which personalized therapies are showing new breakthroughs. The very last article liked by Suzanne Morphew's profile had to do with midlife career changes and "pivoting." That's alongside the "forgive people who wrong you" type of thing she also liked.

Why would you think this was not her profile? Why did it go silent when she disappeared? Who would have gone to the trouble to impersonate Suzanne on LinkedIn?

 

[Momofthreeboys]

We don't. However, the things she liked and commented on would indicate extensive commitment to a fraudulent account - for a woman who was not at all in the public eye until after her disappearance.

She commented on and liked things going on in Colorado Springs. She liked things related to biking and outdoor fitness.

If that profile is fake, then of course her FB could be fake too, as well as her Twitter. Yet, we've all been using those items here as sources. LinkedIn requires email verification and collects IP information. It would be truly amazing to me if her family allowed that LinkedIn profile to go unchallenged if they thought it wasn't hers.

Suzanne's LInkedIn profile liked items related to cancer recovery, to patient care advocacy, sports medicine and empathy/compassion. Again, lots of likes for Colorado Springs agencies (jobs, etc). Visiting Angels of Southwest Colorado. So whoever built this had to have known Suzanne pretty well (where she lived, that she was dealing with health issues, that she was into fitness, that she read Christian books and books on empathy, etc, etc).

So if this is an impersonation, it is a very good one, consistent with what we know about Suzanne. Who would do that? Who would go to LinkedIn, enter a business name (Sunset Farms) belonging to her and to Barry, and do so at least one year before she went missing?

There's even a like for an article on new kinds of medical research, cancer research in particular, in which personalized therapies are showing new breakthroughs. The very last article liked by Suzanne Morphew's profile had to do with midlife career changes and "pivoting." That's alongside the "forgive people who wrong you" type of thing she also liked.

Why would you think this was not her profile? Why did it go silent when she disappeared? Who would have gone to the trouble to impersonate Suzanne on LinkedIn?

I think it's hers. Her oldest daughter would have been well aware of Linkedin as a college student and she was probably interested. It is likely Suzanne was contemplating her "next step" now that her children were grown. I saw one or two friends I had who became SAHM's when they had children and then had "what next" moments as their children exited high school and college and they contemplated a job or something outside the home. I do have a gut feeling Suzanne was at a crossroads of sorts.

 

[MsBetsy]

I’m just jumping off your post, @10ofRods. I’m traveling and don’t have the LI link in front of me. But I have to ask, how do we know that profile was even created by SM? Unlike some of her other social media accounts, the info I can see publicly doesn’t do anything to give me confidence that she created that profile. For me there’s not even a profile pic or a last name. Sometimes I think we shouldn’t even be discussing it. Was that profile originally sourced to us by a relative, LS, PE, or the MSM? For now, I’m putting very little stock in anything I see there, even though I’d very much like to think she had big plans for an independent life… MOO.

I don't know about "big" plans for an independent life, but I think anyone considering divorce would be thinking seriously about future goals and what kind of work they'd like to do once they are "free."

Suzanne probably couldn't wait to get away from her browbeating husband after all those years.

She had a degree in education, teaching experience, and seemed to have a passion and talent for helping people. She had plenty of opportunities ahead of her, had she lived.

 

[CGray123]

Okay - so the prelim could be cancelled if Barry decides to plead guilty (either because the evidence is so strong or more charges might be filed) or because the defense fears that the witnesses, once they all hear each other, will become so entrenched that "interviewing" them is not possible.

Here's my total guess. BM and his team decide the allegations are so sensational the potential harm from pretrial publicity is enormous. Redaction doesn't work for them, and testimony in a dramatic open hearing with no ability to control what comes out would be even worse. So at the last minute they waive the prelim and file a new motion to prevent disclosure of the AA, emphasizing the damaging effects of pretrial disclosure in a very small town. This will buy more time to develop other strategies and pursue evidence they can claim the CCSO overlooked.

 

[Alethea]

The preliminary hearing is meant to challenge the basis of the arrest and charges. If you can't prove what the state is saying is false or that what the state is alleging does not actually amount to a crime, it can be pointless (IMO) to have the hearing from the perspective of the defense. You essentially need to argue that there's no probable cause so the case should be thrown out.

In many cases, the facts are more nuanced. Maybe your client did the act but you can prove lack of intent or some other affirmative defense. That's not enough to challenge probable cause so you may not want to waste your time with a hearing.

Sometimes a case rests on forensic evidence and you need time to hire your own experts to review the evidence. If you can't get that done within the 2 weeks (which you rarely can), you may waive the hearing to focus on hiring your experts and testing the evidence.

If, instead, you can prove your client was out of the country when a crime was committed (and it's alleged that he or she physically committed the crime), that's a good reason to force the state to a hearing. In practice you would be communicating with the state about any bombshell like that ahead of time but some prosecutors are more reasonable than others. If my client is on camera in Geneva and the state says he's in New Jersey, you can bet we aren't waiting for trial to get him out of jail. But short of something like that I do not personally see the benefit in a hearing most of the time. My goal is to get the best outcome for my client. If I'm not going to win, I am wasting time that could be better used finding exculpatory evidence or information that can be used to get the best outcome - whether that is winning at trial, getting a fair plea deal, etc.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

The preliminary hearing is meant to challenge the basis of the arrest and charges. If you can't prove what the state is saying is false or that what the state is alleging does not actually amount to a crime, it can be pointless (IMO) to have the hearing from the perspective of the defense. You essentially need to argue that there's no probable cause so the case should be thrown out.

In many cases, the facts are more nuanced. Maybe your client did the act but you can prove lack of intent or some other affirmative defense. That's not enough to challenge probable cause so you may not want to waste your time with a hearing.

Sometimes a case rests on forensic evidence and you need time to hire your own experts to review the evidence. If you can't get that done within the 2 weeks (which you rarely can), you may waive the hearing to focus on hiring your experts and testing the evidence.

If, instead, you can prove your client was out of the country when a crime was committed (and it's alleged that he or she physically committed the crime), that's a good reason to force the state to a hearing. In practice you would be communicating with the state about any bombshell like that ahead of time but some prosecutors are more reasonable than others. If my client is on camera in Geneva and the state says he's in New Jersey, you can bet we aren't waiting for trial to get him out of jail. But short of something like that I do not personally see the benefit in a hearing most of the time. My goal is to get the best outcome for my client. If I'm not going to win, I am wasting time that could be better used finding exculpatory evidence or information that can be used to get the best outcome - whether that is winning at trial, getting a fair plea deal, etc.

That is interesting because I'm debating in my mind which way the defense will go...all depends on what's in the information they have...that we don't have. If it's thin, maybe they go for dismal. If there is alot of evidence to content with maybe not and they waive. I keep wracking my brain trying to figure out what they have now that they didn't have in December or earlier with the former DA.

 

[DizzyB]

The preliminary hearing is meant to challenge the basis of the arrest and charges. If you can't prove what the state is saying is false or that what the state is alleging does not actually amount to a crime, it can be pointless (IMO) to have the hearing from the perspective of the defense. You essentially need to argue that there's no probable cause so the case should be thrown out.

In many cases, the facts are more nuanced. Maybe your client did the act but you can prove lack of intent or some other affirmative defense. That's not enough to challenge probable cause so you may not want to waste your time with a hearing.

Sometimes a case rests on forensic evidence and you need time to hire your own experts to review the evidence. If you can't get that done within the 2 weeks (which you rarely can), you may waive the hearing to focus on hiring your experts and testing the evidence.

If, instead, you can prove your client was out of the country when a crime was committed (and it's alleged that he or she physically committed the crime), that's a good reason to force the state to a hearing. In practice you would be communicating with the state about any bombshell like that ahead of time but some prosecutors are more reasonable than others. If my client is on camera in Geneva and the state says he's in New Jersey, you can bet we aren't waiting for trial to get him out of jail. But short of something like that I do not personally see the benefit in a hearing most of the time. My goal is to get the best outcome for my client. If I'm not going to win, I am wasting time that could be better used finding exculpatory evidence or information that can be used to get the best outcome - whether that is winning at trial, getting a fair plea deal, etc.

So if you waive, does anything have to be made public?

 

[Momofthreeboys]

So if you waive, does anything have to be made public?

The preliminary and subsequent trial "should be" public by some means and that is where the evidence will definitely be exposed. Preliminaries are "looser" in that some info from a preliminary might be considered hearsay at a trial. Preliminaries tend to tilt in favor of the prosecution if thinking about a scale but can favor the defense by weeding out unsupported charges. The outcome is either the defendant is bound over for trial, the case is dismissed or if the judge feels the evidence is better suited to a different charge the judge can make the decision to take a trial forward on the other charge. What this judge will do about all the background discovery and info not admissible is hard to say since we don't know what all that is. I think in Colorado the soonest a trial would be is a couple months after the preliminary....but with Covid, not sure how it is all working and it would depend on all sorts of things when they schedule jury selection and a trial to begin.

 

[CGray123]

So if you waive, does anything have to be made public?

Here's my uneducated opinion.

The media's public records request isn't going away whatever BM does.

Right now, the judge's order limiting access to the AA is limited in both time and scope. Rule 55.1 allows for issuance of a redacted document if the Judge determines that doing so protects a substantial interest that he identifies, that the substantial interest supersedes in importance the public's right to know, and that there is no other way to protect that interest. His plan is to issue the affidavit after he determines what - if anything - must be redacted. The main purpose of the current order is to allow the time necessary

My guess is Judge Murphy has been working out his own views on redaction from the day he saw the affidavit. I don't know if he's done with that task, but he needs to hear from the parties and consider their views before he makes a final decision. If they don't agree, he will have to allow time for them to brief the disputed issue and time to write his decision. This seems (to me) the main focus of his current order.

That could change, though, if BM files an argument that pretrial publicity of the salacious case in a small community would so prejudice the jury pool that the court must either keep the affidavit sealed or transfer the case to another jurisdiction. If a motion alleging this and other new grounds for limiting access to the AA was filed at the last moment before the prelim begins, and BM waives his right to a hearing, we go back to square one and the judge has to make another decision on the new arguments.

I like to think he will release the affidavit in redacted form, but I don't know...

 

[TIGER0822]

I have to say I'm with you on this one, MaryLamby. The bandaid is going to have to be pulled off sometime.

First, the Court has determined that a murder has occurred and has found the AA more than adequate to establish that, sadly.

Second, the Court has determined that for the purposes of an arrest, the murderer is the husband of the victim.

For most cases, the children in that situation are extremely upset and I would urge professional counseling. But here on WS, we've had people suggest that the daughters are getting automatic access to this document (which is precisely why the Judge sealed it) or that the daughters are being remanded by the Court for psychiatric help/treatment (??? has that ever happened?)

That being said, I am pretty old. And I work in a legal-adjacent field and have done so for...let's see, 45 years? But I still haven't seen everything, by any means. And I'm not a judge but I'm pretty sure that the judge's order is crystal clear. Whether it was intended or not, that order puts the onus on Barry to communicate as best he can what is about to happen, what is about to be claimed. If he gives the daughters no clues (or lies to them) between now and early August, then wow, what does that say about him?

Because it's all going to come out. The Prelim is not going to be cancelled because the daughters might be upset. And even if just the bare outline of the case is covered, it *must* cover why. LE and the DA (and the Judge) believe that Suzanne is 1) dead; 2) murdered and 3) murdered by Barry.

BM is going to do a lot of explaining to his daughters and legal team. He will:

Explain about how evidence was planted.
Explain that LE is out to get him and he is powerless.
Explain about the lies in the AA.
Explain his way out of every damming statement.
Explain how he is innocent, but LE was making him look like the bad guy.
No matter what evidence is stacked against him he will never admit guilt.

<Admin Note: All your opinion of course>

 

[TIGER0822]

BM is going to do a lot of explaining to his daughters and legal team. He will:

Explain about how evidence was planted.
Explain that LE is out to get him and he is powerless.
Explain about the lies in the AA.
Explain his way out of every damming statement.
Explain how he is innocent, but LE was making him look like the bad guy.
No matter what evidence is stacked against him he will never admit guilt.

<Admin Note: All your opinion of course>

agreed: They all are of my opinion,I have this as part of my signature.


“Good without evil is like light without darkness”-Shakespeare. All posts are my opinion only.

 

[10ofRods]

I’m just jumping off your post, @10ofRods. I’m traveling and don’t have the LI link in front of me. But I have to ask, how do we know that profile was even created by SM? Unlike some of her other social media accounts, the info I can see publicly doesn’t do anything to give me confidence that she created that profile. For me there’s not even a profile pic or a last name. Sometimes I think we shouldn’t even be discussing it. Was that profile originally sourced to us by a relative, LS, PE, or the MSM? For now, I’m putting very little stock in anything I see there, even though I’d very much like to think she had big plans for an independent life… MOO.

I just reread your post. Sure - it's fine to ignore all the pictures (also from Zillow) because we "aren't sure" whose they are.

In which case, we have very little to discuss here. In addition to the social media of the victim, we've also been allowed a youtube that shows Barry talking to TD and Profiling Evil, Interview Room and other youtubes.

I find Suzanne's twitter, facebook and linkedin much more credible.

I don't think we all agree on what should be discussed here. But since Suzanne had been active on her LinkedIn not too long before she disappeared, because some of the terms ("Sunset Farms") would have been known only to her (and perhaps Barry) before she disappeared, I'm considering it a better source than "random friend from high school who talked to Interview Room."

Everything in it is consistent with what I see and read about Suzanne elsewhere.