Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #64 *ARREST*

[GordianKnot]

BBM 100x’s your statement bolded by me! IE has some freaking nerve to mention “rotting” when SM’s body can’t be found. MOO

Noting that quote for my EI compilation.

Her complaining to the judge, "We're just getting buried," was also a regrettable choice of words.

Wouldn't be the first time your client has done that to a woman, Miz Eytan.

JMO.

 

[Cindizzi]

Noting that quote for my EI compilation.

Her complaining to the judge, "We're just getting buried," was an especially unfortunate choice of words.

Wouldn't be the first time your client has done that to a woman, Miz Eytan.

JMO.

I especially hated her saying that it’s “ another day that her client hasn’t seen sunshine “.

 

[TKG]

.132, which is what you’d expect from either a small child, or a blind man.

Well, there goes my tacos. Spit them out!!!

 

[GordianKnot]

I am not getting the feeling that Barry is that person.....for some reason...I just think its a third party. No basis, no facts to support.....Its just that a spy pen and a married couple talking to each other on the pen.......not feeling it.

The spy pen is flat weird, no matter WHO intended to use it.

I agree with you. I don't think this is Barry and Suzanne conversing with each other.

I also don't think the spy pen was used in an attempt to record evidence of an affair.
Because, why bother?

Colorado is a no-fault divorce state: Adultery in Colorado: Does Cheating Affect Alimony?
Spouses don't have to show cause or "prove" anything in order to get divorced.
Bad behavior, i.e., adultery, doesn't factor into the financial settlement at all, either.

JMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

I'm far more concerned with prosecutions comments that alluded to their impression that they received no evidence that Suzanne was deceased by murder. Proving she is in fact deceased is step one for the prosecution I would think.
<RSBM>

I think there is a good chance that we need to prepare for the fact that there could be no certain information that Suzanne is deceased. But that there is a whole lot of circumstantial evidence - when taken in sequence - that says that this is the case.

Possibly no large pools of luminoled blood, no large pools of blood on the underside of a carpet, no smoking gun, no gun residue on hands ....

The defense could be indicating that this is one area that they are going to use to try to create reasonable doubt.

"Because no-one has heard from Suzanne in over a year doesn't mean she is dead."
"Because our client used great amounts of chlorine to clean himself doesn't mean she is dead."
"Because bleach was smelled in the hotel room (and in the house?) doesn't mean she is dead."
Etc, etc, etc .....

Not saying that this is right, but they will use any tactic that they can think of to try to create reasonable doubt.
The best thing possible, at the moment, would be for Suzanne's remains to be discovered. Then that argument would be cancelled out.

 

[IronyDetective]

Agree completely about her choice of words IMO, @Cindizzi.
How many days since Suzanne felt the sunshine on her back and the cool breeze in her face? Makes me

 

[Knox]

I don’t see how it’s BM’s spy pen. He would have disposed of something like that long ago. It’s got to be SM’s and was used to record ‘evidence’. Of what is the question.

Agreed!!

Barry disappeared her cell phone, but not her laptop or Kindle. Not many mountain bikers take those devices with them on a ride. That spy pen was probably on top of Suzanne's nightstand. Bet ole Barry is kicking himself about right now, and is pizzed at Suzanne and her creativeness

 

[marylamby]

"The “spy pen” itself is alleged to have contained audio of Suzanne “talking to a man on the phone.”
That sounds to me like it's Barry recording her and not the other way around because why would she be recording her own phone calls with another man? I'm sorry for the confusion I guess I worded my prior post wrong I should have said "It sounds to me like the article is saying it was Barry and not Suzanne" sorry for the confusion.

Whatever the article says, that's not what they said in the hearing. It was unspecified. A woman would definitely record her own conversation with a man if this man was giving her information or they were discussing her husband about any number of things.
There are only two sexes. I think the underlying subtext suggests that she was talking to 'a man' with who she might've been involved with. There's absolutely nothing that gives that insinuation, albeit carefully worded, any sort of veracity whatsoever.

 

[marylamby]

I think it will be discussed in depth during the preliminary hearing. He was apparently interviewed a great deal early on, and those statements would be damning in light of the evidence.

A final interview where he is presented with what was gathered over the course of a year, will be equally huge for the prosecution.

Barry lawyered up after his arrest, but that wouldn’t have mattered at all, as he was interrogated mere weeks before.

As stunning as the pen revelation is, that April 5 sit-down is likely to be of equal or greater importance.

I cannot believe he agreed to that.

Besides his arrogance, he didn't want to waste his 'chicas in paradise' funds to retain a lawyer. He didn't even bother to have a consultation to have anyone at the ready. Cocky or cheap, you decide.

 

[GordianKnot]

So, summarizing EI's list of grievances, here's her litany of complaints so far:

• Barry's tan is fading.
• There's an issue with a mechanical thingy on the spy pen.
• She can't figure out how to open files, and the mean DA man won't walk her through it for the 13th time.
• Barry's being held hostage against his will. He wants to go home.
• The defense is being buried beneath all of the evidence, and it's just not fair.
• Bail should be set, because these aren't capital charges. The fact that the judge says they are capital charges, notwithstanding.

Wow.

Such compelling legal arguments.

I can't believe the judge hasn't dismissed all the charges and sent Barry home yet.

JMO.

 

[gitana1]

Is @riolove77 or @gitana1 around tonight ?I’m curious what the legal opinion might be

Yellow! What’s the question?

 

[gitana1]

I think it will be discussed in depth during the preliminary hearing. He was apparently interviewed a great deal early on, and those statements would be damning in light of the evidence.

A final interview where he is presented with what was gathered over the course of a year, will be equally huge for the prosecution.

Barry lawyered up after his arrest, but that wouldn’t have mattered at all, as he was interrogated mere weeks before.

As stunning as the pen revelation is, that April 5 sit-down is likely to be of equal or greater importance.

I cannot believe he agreed to that.

What did I miss? What’s up with the pen and with theApril 5 sit down?

 

[al66pine]

A Remedy re Prosecutor's Delay(s)?

....Already they have one block checked off on a future determination of a pattern of obstruction....

@Boxer sbm Thanks for your post (answering only part of it now). If prosecutor's delays are repeated, then agreeing w your thought about a potential future determination w consequences. Would it amount to a pattern? Maybe. If so, what consequences?

Trial level? Judge could grant def's motion(s) for extensions of time in filing their responses, pre-trial & at trial. Or could prohibit prosecution from introducing a certain piece of evd or calling a certain witness. Like w this hearing, judge granting more time for def is a remedy for relatively minor delays, even multiple ones. If delays are extensive & repeated, conceivably judge could impose sanctions on prosecution.
Appellate level? Well, not likely imo that a crim sentence would be reversed, except in case of muuuuultiple, extreeeeeme delays, for which trial judge did not which grant extensions.

Welcoming comment, clarification, correction. esp'ly from our legal professionals. my2ct.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I think there is a good chance that we need to prepare for the fact that there could be no certain information that Suzanne is deceased. But that there is a whole lot of circumstantial evidence - when taken in sequence - that says that this is the case.

Possibly no large pools of luminoled blood, no large pools of blood on the underside of a carpet, no smoking gun, no gun residue on hands ....

The defense could be indicating that this is one area that they are going to use to try to create reasonable doubt.

"Because no-one has heard from Suzanne in over a year doesn't mean she is dead."
"Because our client used great amounts of chlorine to clean himself doesn't mean she is dead."
"Because bleach was smelled in the hotel room (and in the house?) doesn't mean she is dead."
Etc, etc, etc .....

Not saying that this is right, but they will use any tactic that they can think of to try to create reasonable doubt.
The best thing possible, at the moment, would be for Suzanne's remains to be discovered. Then that argument would be cancelled out.

Little hard to convict on Barry’s charges if they can’t prove she is deceased. I have to assume they got something to make that charge or they won’t even make it through the preliminary.

 

[SouthAussie]

<RSBM>

• Bail should be set, because these aren't capital charges, the fact that the judge says they are capital charges, notwithstanding.

JMO.

One good thing about this is that bail can (possibly) be set for capital cases in CO if the presumption is not great, or proof is not evident.

Seems that the presumption is great and/or proof is evident in this case. Likely from evidence in the AA ... which will flow on to evidence at the Prelim Hearing, then the trial.

Section 19. Right to bail - exceptions.
(1) All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties pending disposition of charges except:
(a) For capital offenses when proof is evident or presumption is great; or .......
https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ccjj/Committees/BailSub/Handouts/CO_Constitution_ArtII-Sec-19-20.pdf

 

[RumorMonger]

If you are a woman in an abusive relationship and you fear your husband AND your husband has the phone bill in his name and all your photos, data, etc get uploaded to the iCloud family plan where said spouse can see everything you do? Yep I’d get another device on my own too. Good for Suzanne for being so smart.

That's a lot of ifs of which zero are proven. IMO

 

[SouthAussie]

Little hard to convict on Barry’s charges if they can’t prove she is deceased. I have to assume they got something to make that charge or they won’t even make it through the preliminary.

Not necessarily so. IMO

Presumption of Death
Such a presumption is typically made by an individual when a person has been missing for an extended period and in the absence of any evidence that person is still alive – or after a much shorter period but where the circumstances surrounding a person's disappearance overwhelmingly support the belief that the person is dead.
Presumption of death - Wikipedia

 

[Knox]

I swear the small bit I was able to hear from Profiling Evil who covered the hearing. She sounded just like Barry when he spoke to Lauren Scharf in those recorded interviews. Whiny, a targeted victim, entitled.

How did he get so lucky to find the female version of himself?

 

[RumorMonger]

Suzanne may have even taken photos of any injuries that she had sustained from DV (if DV plays a part here, which I suspect it might).
Bruises that no-one else could see, for example. Because injuries may have been caused in concealed areas of Suzanne's person.

Along with recordings on a spy pen, perhaps copies of threatening text messages.

Suzanne may have been accumulating what she needed to keep BM away from her, and proceed with a life of her own. She said she was scared.

Just to be crystal clear, all talk of DV is complete speculation across the board, right? It pops up all the time but I think people have told themselves a story here because its been a year and we still have basically no actual evidence.

 

[SouthAussie]

Just to be crystal clear, all talk of DV is complete speculation across the board, right? It pops up all the time but I think people have told themselves a story here because its been a year and we still have basically no actual evidence.

Yes. It is pure speculation. Which is all we have at the moment.

I personally think that we have been told that 'Suzanne was scared' and that was likely because of the age-old reason that she wanted to leave a said-to-be controlling husband.

I also personally think that said-to-be controlling husband was not going to split the family assets, so Suzanne was not allowed to leave ... alive.

But that is pure speculation, based on historical cases.