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

[Momofthreeboys]

My guess/vote is they don’t waive the preliminary and they ask for bond if not dismissal depending on the evidence. I think both sides are going to be aggressive in this case. I also think they will want this to move quickly with minimal delays unless their investigator uncovers something that requires time or the forensic evidence testing becomes an issue.

 

[Barry]

Delay tactics could be a double edged sword, as it also gives the prosecution time to uncover more evidence, and potentially the body could be found. MOO.

 

[TKG]

Delay tactics could be a double edged sword, as it also gives the prosecution time to uncover more evidence, and potentially the body could be found. MOO.

 

[10ofRods]

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.

Thank you for putting it so clearly and succinctly.

 

[CGray123]

In the Gannon Stauch case, his stepmother (accused of the murder), was representing herself briefly. Prior to that request being granted, she asked the judge to waive her preliminary hearing. This is what a legal expert had to say about that, and why it is an awful idea:

On Friday, Stauch asked about waiving her Proof Evident, Presumption Great Hearing, what does that tell you?

Loew: The fact that she tried to or that she waved her Proof Evident, Presumption Great Hearing, is just a red flag that she has no clue what she's doing. A Proof Evident, Presumption Great hearing is [where] the district attorney's office has to put on witnesses to show that the proof is evident, and the presumption is great that the defendant would be convicted. Now, in Colorado, there are no criminal depositions. So what this is, is a hearing that allows the defendant to cross-examine, and get impeachment information to be used later at trial. So, there's pretty much there is no benefit to waiving the Proof Evident, Presumption Great Hearing. Potentially, she could have been entitled to bond. So, if she waived the Proof Evident, Presumption Great Hearing, it is even a bigger red flag that she is completely lost.

Letecia Stauch will defend herself at murder trial, now what? - KRDO

Thanks for this! I am sure this is why attorneys want to go through these hearings.

JMO, though:

1. If I understand correctly, most of the evidence will be presented by investigators, who will be allowed to summarize and present hearsay. The attorneys won't get a shot at key witnesses, who may not agree to be interviewed by BM's investigators. I'm not convinced this is a huge advantage.

2. If you're an attorney reduced to playing cross-examination word games with a witness's prior recorded testimony, your client is in deep trouble.

3. I think it was @Seattle1 who indicated that if the judge finds probable cause, he will find the proof is evident or the presumption is great that BM committed the offenses charged. BM can't expect any positive outcome from the prelim IMO.

 

[MassGuy]

Thanks for this! I am sure this is why attorneys want to go through these hearings.

JMO, though:

1. If I understand correctly, most of the evidence will be presented by investigators, who will be allowed to summarize and present hearsay. The attorneys won't get a shot at key witnesses, who may not agree to be interviewed by BM's investigators. I'm not convinced this is a huge advantage.

2. If you're an attorney reduced to playing cross-examination word games with a witness's prior recorded testimony, your client is in deep trouble.

3. I think it was @Seattle1 who indicated that if the judge finds probable cause, he will find the proof is evident or the presumption is great that BM committed the offenses charged. BM can't expect any positive outcome from the prelim IMO.

That’s how the Frazee preliminary was handled. Two investigators were called, and they recounted the evidence and witness statements.

With a task force comprised of three agencies, I wouldn’t be surprised if three investigators were called to represent their respective organizations.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Thanks for this! I am sure this is why attorneys want to go through these hearings.

JMO, though:

1. If I understand correctly, most of the evidence will be presented by investigators, who will be allowed to summarize and present hearsay. The attorneys won't get a shot at key witnesses, who may not agree to be interviewed by BM's investigators. I'm not convinced this is a huge advantage.

2. If you're an attorney reduced to playing cross-examination word games with a witness's prior recorded testimony, your client is in deep trouble.

3. I think it was @Seattle1 who indicated that if the judge finds probable cause, he will find the proof is evident or the presumption is great that BM committed the offenses charged. BM can't expect any positive outcome from the prelim IMO.

Yes if after the testimony and cross if the judge feels proof is evident and presumption great Barry will be bound over for trial. But we will then have insight into the prosecutions case and perhaps the evidence they have collected. And I agree it will be most likely LE giving testimony.

 

[GordianKnot]

In the Gannon Stauch case, his stepmother (accused of the murder), was representing herself briefly. Prior to that request being granted, she asked the judge to waive her preliminary hearing. This is what a legal expert had to say about that, and why it is an awful idea:

On Friday, Stauch asked about waiving her Proof Evident, Presumption Great Hearing, what does that tell you?

Loew: The fact that she tried to or that she waved her Proof Evident, Presumption Great Hearing, is just a red flag that she has no clue what she's doing. A Proof Evident, Presumption Great hearing is [where] the district attorney's office has to put on witnesses to show that the proof is evident, and the presumption is great that the defendant would be convicted. Now, in Colorado, there are no criminal depositions. So what this is, is a hearing that allows the defendant to cross-examine, and get impeachment information to be used later at trial. So, there's pretty much there is no benefit to waiving the Proof Evident, Presumption Great Hearing. Potentially, she could have been entitled to bond. So, if she waived the Proof Evident, Presumption Great Hearing, it is even a bigger red flag that she is completely lost.

Letecia Stauch will defend herself at murder trial, now what? - KRDO

To quote the great legal scholar, Patrick Frazee: "Well, exactly."

Barry is going to want the prelim because it's his one and only shot at getting bailed out of his cage until trial.

Barry's lawyers are going to want the prelim so they can try to figure out which questions to ask of prosecution witnesses and which questions to avoid asking on cross during the actual trial.
"Never ask a question you don't know the answer to."

Aside from the AA, discovery, and the prelim, the defense is pretty much going to be working in the dark, on account of their client is a lying liar who lies.

The truth definitely ain't going to set Barry free.

JMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

Benefits of a preliminary hearing .....


First, the preliminary hearing can serve as an informal means of discovery .... information that can be of great value in preparing a defense.

A second benefit is that the defense can lay the groundwork for the future impeachment of witnesses.

A third benefit of a preliminary hearing is that it can help educate the defense, the prosecution, and the court. The suspect may realize for the first time the strength of the prosecution's case, which may help decide whether to seek a plea bargain.

For the prosecution, the main benefit of the preliminary hearing is the chance to perpetuate testimony. Once a witness has testified at the preliminary hearing, that testimony can be introduced as evidence at trial .... (if the witness later becomes unavailable).

Preliminary Hearing - Other Functions Of A Preliminary Hearing

 

[Momofthreeboys]

We can’t really talk about other people but I am super curious what and who a “key witness” might be other than people directly related to the timeline and Barry’s travels and those who can confirm last sightings of Suzanne.

 

[jondaba]

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 what is your prediction, counselor - plea or trial?

 

[jondaba]

If Barry is content to sit in jail and delay trial, then he must be very comfortable that they won’t locate Suzanne’s body in the meantime. It could also indicate that the prosecution has a very strong case against him without a body. Else, he would want to get to trial quickly and be acquitted on a no-body case and walk free. He’s simply sitting in jail and delaying going to prison. He knows he will never again be a free man.

If BM’s attys could think of a way to get him out of jail, they would try it. He is still locked up apparently because the factual allegations in the AA cannot be overcome. If so, the defense is in no rush to confront the unpleasant inevitable. It may take some time for BM to realize the jig is up. Nothing anyone can say or do to hasten Barry’s going away party.

 

[TIGER0822]

There have been theories here that the body was moved, why is this a suspicion? Why would BM risk moving the body?

 

[MassGuy]

There have been theories here that the body was moved, why is this a suspicion? Why would BM risk moving the body?

The charges only reflect the body being moved that initial time, and don’t indicate the body being moved subsequent to that. So I’m not sure where this speculation is coming from.

Killers have moved bodies in past cases, and there is plenty of precedent for that.

I just don’t like that here because I believe Barry used his Bobcat to conceal Suzanne’s body, and I don’t believe it was necessary or even viable, especially considering the scrutiny he was under.

 

[katydid23]

The charges only reflect the body being moved that initial time, and don’t indicate the body being moved subsequent to that. So I’m not sure where this speculation is coming from.

Killers have moved bodies in past cases, and there is plenty of precedent for that.

I just don’t like that here because I believe Barry used his Bobcat to conceal Suzanne’s body, and I don’t believe it was necessary or even viable, especially considering the scrutiny he was under.

Yes, LE was on to him very quickly. I don't think he had the time or privacy to make any bold moves like that. But if he used his bobcat, she is probably very well hidden. We may never recover her, sadly.

 

[Alethea]

So what is your prediction, counselor - plea or trial?

I think they will go to trial unless for some reason there’s a plea to a significantly lesser charge due to some issue with the state’s case. Usually the state won’t do that if they have enough evidence and defendants like this think they’ll be able to talk their way out of it at trial so you get to a standstill.

Defendants like this often have a whole theory how they’re being persecuted and railroaded by the state and jurors won’t buy it. They are very difficult to defend.

 

[marylamby]

The charges only reflect the body being moved that initial time, and don’t indicate the body being moved subsequent to that. So I’m not sure where this speculation is coming from.

Killers have moved bodies in past cases, and there is plenty of precedent for that.

I just don’t like that here because I believe Barry used his Bobcat to conceal Suzanne’s body, and I don’t believe it was necessary or even viable, especially considering the scrutiny he was under.

Did JP say what was wrong with the bobcat and what exactly BM was repairing on Saturday? For some reason I'm remembering a 'plate' of some sort? Was he using the bobcat at the 'beach' worksite? Was MG using it to level the land or was she raking it by hand? Does he own an auger attachment?
Why was it so important to fix the cat when he was supposed to be making 'the wife happy by going on a bike ride' or whatever, according to MG? Did he fix it because he needed it for the 'wall' that there's no work order for? Or, did he break it the night before? Was he planning on using it Saturday night?

Yeah, lots of questions. I do think it's possible that he moved her body more than once. The first time would obviously be from the home but that might've been a temporary move until he could secure a permanent, more undetectable place.
He was tweaking when Andy's searchers were near the residence which makes me think something could be found nearby.
Watched Shawshank Redemption again last night and if you'll remember, Tim Robbin's character Andy says to Morgan Freeman (Red) how there's a rock that has no earthly reason of being there (under the tree near a stone wall where he can find a box buried). Made me wonder about a misplaced rock. A big one. A new one that wasn't there before. Does google earth provide timed photos/stills, as in dates?
Would love any answers/thoughts to these questions, if anyone can help.

eta: typo fix

 

[allyoucantleavebehind]

To my way of thinking, LinkedIn is purely focused on linking people to careers, professional employment opportunities ... and enhances their site by offering positive items, such as how to stay healthy, both mentally and physically. And how to cope with the personalities in that world.

For example, the post that Suzanne liked about a personal trainer was giving the personal trainer accolades for building her business and expanding her client base.
And the post she liked about How Successful People Handle Toxic People is self evident in its title.

When reviewing resumes, an employer can go to LinkedIn to get more info about a person - if that person is a LinkedIn member. And an employer can go to LinkedIn and review people in specific industry sectors if they are looking for people to headhunt for their own business.

Employers can also advertise vacant positions on LinkedIn, and members can receive alerts about vacant positions in specific industry sectors by ticking certain boxes within their profile settings.

I can't tell when she liked those articles. Just that they are listed under All Activity.
The personal trainer post was from '1 year' ago. Other posts are from '2 years' ago. Not all of the articles are dated.
.

Yes, and lots of nonprofit professionals use LinkedIn as a networking tool and a way to learn about funding opportunities. Which reminds me--didn't Suzanne have a foundation that she organized? Does anyone know the status of that foundation or is she was working on any projects or plans with it? I think I remember it wanted to help kids and it was international and related to faith. I wonder if Suzanne was imagining some travel or missionary activity? MOO

 

[Boxer]

Yes, and lots of nonprofit professionals use LinkedIn as a networking tool and a way to learn about funding opportunities. Which reminds me--didn't Suzanne have a foundation that she organized? Does anyone know the status of that foundation or is she was working on any projects or plans with it? I think I remember it wanted to help kids and it was international and related to faith. I wonder if Suzanne was imagining some travel or missionary activity? MOO

SUZANNE R MORPHEW HOPE FOUNDATION INC | Open990

MOO it was started in Indiana, not sure why but it looks after it was instituted there have been no funds added or activity.

 

[SouthAussie]

SUZANNE R MORPHEW HOPE FOUNDATION INC | Open990

MOO it was started in Indiana, not sure why but it looks after it was instituted there have been no funds added or activity.

I notice that there are litte tabs at the top of each section that open info for Dec 2015 and info for Dec 2019.

When looking at the Assets, it started with $4,680 in assets in Dec 2015 ('earliest'). Then when flicking to Dec 2019 ('latest') it shows $6,680 in assets.

The tax filing (further down) in 2015 shows the $4,680 as contributions/gifts/grants/and similar amounts (public support) received.
The tax filing in 2019 shows $6,680 in cash/savings/investments.

Somewhere along the line, the foundation had a gain in assets over 5 years of $2,000. Though nothing was received in 2019.
It is not possible to see where the $2,000 was contributed as it only shows the tax returns for 2015 and 2019.

Wherever the assets were held, it doesn't seem that they earned interest. Because I would think that interest would show up as an odd amount (eg: $33.26 or some other odd amount).