Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #72 *ARREST*

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #441
I really don't understand the comments suggesting the case against BM is in trouble, after reading a few tweets reported from a hearing in which less than half the listed witnesses testified, the purpose of which is not to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but IMO, to produce evidence sufficient that an ordinary person could have a reasonable belief that the defendant may have committed the crime for which they are charged - i.e. probable cause - and in which the prosecution's evidence must be taken at face value.

There can be no doubt at all that BM will be bound over for trial IMO. It is also certain in my mind (MOO) that we have not seen nearly all the evidence that will be produced at trial. My opinion is that the defense team's aggressive approach to the prelim has given the prosecution information the DA can use to adjust her case, without significant benefit too BM in terms of outcomes.

I think we should remind ourselves periodically of how the jury will be instructed to do its job. (See Colorado Jury Instructions - Criminal).

They will be instructed that there is no difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence:

"D:01 DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE—NO DISTINCTION

A fact may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Under the law, both are acceptable ways to prove something. Neither is necessarily more reliable than the other.
Direct evidence is based on first-hand observation of the fact in question. [For example, a witness’s testimony that he [she] looked out a window and saw snow falling might be offered as direct evidence that it had snowed.]

Circumstantial evidence is indirect. It is based on observations of related facts that may lead you to reach a conclusion about the fact in question. [For example, a witness’s testimony that he [she] looked out a window and saw snow covering the ground might be offered as circumstantial evidence that it had snowed.]

COMMENT

1. See People v. Bennett, 515 P.2d 466, 469 (Colo. 1973) (“we now cast aside as outmoded and as confusing the requirement that the prosecution’s evidence, when wholly circumstantial, must exclude every reasonable hypotheses other than that of guilt and no longer require such aninstruction or such a test to be applied”)."

They don't need evidence on every point of fact - they are allowed to draw reasonable inferences:

"D:11 INFERENCES—GENERAL

A permissible inference allows, but does not require, you to find a fact from proof of another fact or facts, if that conclusion is justified by the evidence as a whole. It is entirely your decision to determine what weight shall be given the evidence.

You must bear in mind that the prosecution always has the burden of proving each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and that a permissible inference does not shift that burden to the defendant.

COMMENT

1. See Jolly v. People, 742 P.2d 891, 897 (Colo. 1987) (provision of statute proscribing driving while license revoked authorized only a permissible inference that defendant had knowledge of fact of revocation from proof of registered mailing of notice, rather than creating a conclusive presumption or mandatory burden-shifting presumption with respect to that element of the offense; the statutory term “prima facie proof” is functionally equivalent to a permissible inference); Barnes v. People, 735 P.2d 869, 872–74 (Colo. 1987) (“a mandatory presumption may not be constitutionally used against a criminal defendant if a reasonable jury could construe it as conclusive or shifting the burden of persuasion on an essential element of a crime”; driving under the influence statute, which provided that it shall be presumed that defendant was under influence of alcohol if there was 0.10 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, as shown by chemical analysis of defendant’s blood, authorized only permissible inference that defendant was under the influence of alcohol); People v. Felgar, 58 P.3d 1122, 1124–25 (Colo. App. 2002) (instruction establishing mandatory presumption concerning the defendant’s knowledge violated due process, even though the instruction tracked the statutory language).

2. In some circumstances, an instruction describing an evidentiary inference may be based on precedent. For example, in cases where evidence of the defendant’s unexplained, exclusive possession of recently stolen goods is relevant (e.g., theft, robbery, burglary), refer to the instruction in the appendix to Wells v. People, 592 P.2d 1321 (Colo. 1979).

See also People v. Hampton, 758 P.2d 1344, 1355 (Colo. 1988) (“In Wells, we . . . appended to our opinion a recommended instruction for use in future jury trials.”).

3. Both the United States Supreme Court and the Colorado Supreme Court have used the terms “permissive inference” and “permissible inference” interchangeably. See, e.g., County Court of Ulster County, N. Y. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 157 (1979) (using both terms within the same paragraph); People in Matter of R.M.D., 829 P.2d 852, 854 (Colo. 1992) (same). Further, it does not appear that any appellate court has ever analyzed whether there is a meaningful distinction between the two terms. Accordingly, the Committee has elected, for the sake of clarity and consistency, to use the term “permissible inference” throughout the model instructions.

Proof beyond all doubt is not required. Reasonable doubt is not a vague, speculative, or imaginary doubt, like we tend to indulge in on WS.

"E:03 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, AND REASONABLE DOUBT

Every person charged with a crime is presumed innocent. This presumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial and should be given effect by you unless, after considering all of the evidence, you are then convinced that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of all of the elements necessary to constitute the crime charged.
Reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon reason and common sense which arises from a fair and rational consideration of all of the evidence, or the lack of evidence, in the case. It is a doubt which is not a vague, speculative or imaginary doubt, but such a doubt as would cause reasonable people to hesitate to act in matters of importance to themselves.

If you find from the evidence that each and every element of a crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of that crime. If you find from the evidence that the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of that crime."

IMO, Barry Morphew is in great jeopardy of spending the rest of his life in prison, reflecting on his mortal sins.
 
  • #442
  • #443
Following drugged prey outside as it runs then stumbles around, just intervening enough to keep the prey from going inside the house to pull stuff down. MOO that wouldn't leave struggle evidence or bruises etc.
Just getting hit with a tranq dart would leave a huge bruise.
 
  • #444
I know we are all just spitballing here, but I really feel like as a hunter, he would not want to risk the possibility that she would make it back into the house or dial a phone or scream. If he was moving about, I’m not so sure that he was chasing. He would want to immobilize his prey with the first shot. Hunters don’t scramble about chasing an animal (except chipmunks). How did he kill Suzanne and leave no trace? Were the chaise lounges in the exact position that they always were? Was Suzanne lying on a towel that cannot be found? My brain won’t stop.

Sadly, I don't think he killed her out on the patio. I also don't think it's possible immobilize a human instantly with a tranquilizer dart - although if he used one intended for, say, a buck...it would probably take only a few minutes. Within those few minutes, the person would become increasingly disoriented and then collapse. If it was ketamine, they might very well still have some consciousness of what was happening.

My view of what happened next is pretty dark and there's no reason to share all of it. What follows may be too much info for some, I'm trying to be delicate.

I would assume that Barry had preassembled the "packaging" he needed and did not use towels, sheets or anything like that.

Barry would have had game bags, for example. You can look it up on Amazon. Every hunter has them.

His goal is to make sure that no evidence of decomp/death is present on his property. As I have posted many times, he had time on his side - because even if she did die on the property (I think it was likely through suffocation), it would have taken several hours for decomp to be even remotely detectable by the world's best cadaver dog. Cadaverine is produced after the enzymatic process that causes rigor mortis has taken place. So he needed to do something such as put her in a large cooler or toolbox, because while others may disagree, I don't think he took an immobilized Suzanne and propped her up on the passenger side of whichever vehicle he used for disposal.

Hunters don't usually hunt humans, but if Suzanne did get a few moments to try to flee, Barry would have grabbed her, snatched her phone, cornered her until the tranq took effect.

I can think of many variations on this scenario and readily see how it appealed to Barry, with his penchant for hunting (which takes planning too). The only part that is still really fuzzy for me is what type of terrain he would have chosen to either bury her or toss her body.

He would either have chosen some place near PP (to keep the bike/abduction theory going - but that's higher risk for him) or, as we all suspect, he went somewhere in a RR without GPS...

Would a cadaver dog be able to hit on a body wrapped in several layers of plastic, then placed in a container, and then put several feet under ground? We simply don't know. Cadaver dogs are not 100% accurate. If the outer container was airtight or nearly so, and the packaging of the body was properly done...I think it would be very tough for a cadaver dog - even now, when the interior of that packaging is fully decomposed.

Of course, disposal could have taken place elsewhere, with a vehicle that has no GPS, in which case, I don't think there's much chance of ever finding Suzanne's body.
 
  • #445
I think this as well. The big question is how did he take her to her final resting place? That’s why I keep asking about the Range Rover and if it had tracking software.

That is what interests me too. I think for a long time he had been fantasizing about his 'perfect murder' and how he would leave no traces .I wonder if he had always had a hiding spot in mind. I think Suzanne telling him it really was over set in motion his idea to activate his plans. Did he go and check/prepare a disposal site anytime before that Saturday?
 
  • #446
IIRC (I can't find the tweet) the defense challenged that BM could not have been moving around the house chasing SM like LE claimed. I believe they said he would have been moving over 30 mph and that's impossible. Does anyone remember this? IMO

It’s mentioned in the article I linked above.

“Defense attorneys said Barry Morphew spoke to law enforcement 23 times from the day his wife disappeared until the end of 2020, and said the chipmunks claim did not get brought up until this year. Nielsen argued that the phone data would have meant Barry was moving through walls and at speeds humans are not capable of for the pings to be true.”

Boxer had a good point about the triangular patterns, although I’m not familiar with the technology.

MOO "Chased" not right word for it. Contained more like it.
But I don't think the defense made a point about the Cellubrite and walls.
Obviously BM was there, and between 2:44 and 2:47 he says he was running around after chipmunks.
Those that have used FMIP know the tracking makes triangular patterns when someone is running around.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...out-movements-surrounding-wifes-disappearance
 
  • #447
Prosecution is under great pressure to present all of this quickly - I think you'll see some of what you seek at the ending of the Prelim. However, this isn't about the public or what "we" think (I think something rather different than you do and I am going to have to check my own notes and a shared timeline for your claim about Suzanne's phone pinging far away at nearly 5 am, I don't recall that and boy did we discuss each tweet extensively).

I think your understanding of Barry's style is off. He does not want to be seen as a liar. He admitted readily to the FBI agents that he knew the voting fraud was wrong. He thinks he's very smart and he actually went into many (23?) meetings with LE without a lawyer. He had a public defender at first.

He knows with certainty that no evidence of that dart being used on Suzanne will ever be found (and right now, I agree with him - I do not think anything except skeletal matter is left of Suzanne and that will not show evidence of a dart or of any kind of dosing of ketamine or anything else he might have put in the dart).

In my mind, the dart will never turn out to be nothing. The trash that they did recover contained tranquilizer material and Barry admitted to it!

We'll probably never know exactly what killed Suzanne, but the GPS data still to come will fill in more of what Barry did.

Judge has said the overuse of time on the part of the defense will be subtracted from the next hearings. Prosecution will regroup - they went from an original list of 18 witnesses (most of them expert witnesses) to 8 and only got to 3.



To me (and I'm a Californian), that's perfect sunbathing weather, especially at higher altitude.
If you are correct...then that sets up objections by the defense for reference to the dart as being irrelevant and hypothetical. There is a basis for charging Barry with possession of an illegal firearm (short rifle) which I believe is more connected to the larger crime than what we currently know...and I don't think its just a piling on charge. The facts already place Barry in Suzanne's presence with a weapon in his possession...just prior to her last known communication with the outside world. I totally agree that evidence of the tranquilizer will be and is likely already gone.
I did see one interview this week with a guy waiting to get into the preliminary hearing. He said he had worked for Barry at one time. I can’t come up with nine, but if I were a reporter, I would have gotten that guy’s contact info and tried to get an interview.
If Barry had bona fide employees, there is a clear paper trail in place to prove it. Tax and accounting records and filings, workers compensation and liability insurance policies....both of which require actual or estimated number of employees...(28 years in the insurance business, so I am right about this)...not to mention most states impose legal sanctions on businesses which operate without the required workers comp coverage. On the other hand, many construction related businesses farm out their labor to sub-contractors who are actually doing the manual labor. The subs must themselves provide the contractor with proof of liability and workers comp insurance on their employees...and the contractor only insures himself and actual employees, with liability coverage to supplement the subs he or she has hired. This question about "employees" is easily answered. Whether or not the PPE loans (for approval) required the indepth documentation to verify # and types of employees....I do not know. It was COVID days...wouldn't be surprised if the rules were lax if not fast-tracked.
 
  • #448
Does anyone else think Suzanne knew very well that Barry was a controlling narcissist who was possessive and prone to violence, but she was so fed up and “done” with their relationship that she just couldn’t wait any longer to end their relationship? I’m not saying she knew Barry would murder her, but what if she was beyond caring about his reaction?...
What is perplexing to me is that she was afraid to be alone with Barry; however, she chooses a time when the girls are gone to send that "I'm done." text to him.

She created the perfect storm with an unstable individual, especially, since he had lots of guns at the house and had pulled a gun in her presence on a previous occasion.

I tried to think back to my past experience with a similar type person. I will say that I was very afraid of him; however, I did get to a point where I was numb from the threats and just accepted my fate, if it were meant to be. Perhaps, this is the point that Suzanne has reached.

JMO.
 
Last edited:
  • #449
Couple thoughts:

1) IMO, BM’s “if one person could be saved” is related to her not getting the divorce. She said in messages to JL that she couldn’t get divorced for “biblical reasons” and then finally told BM she wanted out. BM’s texts in response were worded in a way that makes me wonder more about what church they attended and what type of Christianity they followed. He may try to justify what he did by saying that death is better than divorce.

2) cheating is rarely the problem in the relationship, it is a symptom of the breakdown in communication, honesty, and respect. I think sometimes people focus too much on the act and not the factors that led up to it. I am not going to begrudge a victim of DV for finding an outlet in an impossible marriage. Religious concerns, children, controlling partner, away from family… That is a LOT of outside forces keeping you tied down. Sometimes seeing that better is out there is what gives strength to move forward, I believe that Suzanne was doing the best she could in a 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 situation. It takes immense courage to leave an abusive relationship, especially one where you already feel physically threatened. My heart aches for her not having a better support system.
 
  • #450
I think that pretty much everybody did work “for” Barry. I doubt that he had 9 employees on his payroll, I see him 1099ing everyone. Did he hold workers comp insurance for these people? I would love to be a forensic accountant that reviewed the Broomfield wall documentation. That’s government stuff and I wonder about the level of subcontracting and the proper certificates for this.

Absolutely this. I’ve long wondered if Barry even dutifully paid into SS for him and Suzanne, which would be exposed during divorce proceedings.
 
  • #451
Does anyone else think Suzanne knew very well that Barry was a controlling narcissist who was possessive and prone to violence, but she was so fed up and “done” with their relationship that she just couldn’t wait any longer to end their relationship? I’m not saying she knew Barry would murder her, but what if she was beyond caring about his reaction?

Don’t worry about it :) The same thing happens to all of us.

Yes, sure. MMO She made her "doneness" clear to BM. Which IMO was a bigger motive for him to murder her than her affair, if he even knew about it. I think she knew he was dirty in many ways and she needed to distance herself from him. She was also a potential witness.

JL is an important witness. I have to wonder if he consulted a lawyer about not coming forward. MOO
 
  • #452
What is perplexing to me is that she was afraid to be alone with Barry; however, she chooses a time when the girls are gone to send that "I'm done." text to him.

She created the perfect storm with an unstable individual, especially, since he had lots of guns at the house and had pulled a gun in her presence on a previous occasion.

I tried to think back to my past experience with a similar type person. I will say that I was very afraid of him; however, I did get to a point where I was numb from the threats and just accepted my fate, if it were meant to be. Perhaps, this is the point that Suzanne has reached.

My ex-husband frequently told me that he could murder me, and nobody would find my body. I responded to him that I had written a detailed letter and sent it to my father, telling him to open it if I ever disappeared.

JMO.

I say this without any victim blaming but I wish she would have just picked up and went to her sister's or someone else's house. Ending a relationship is the most dangerous time for a person involved in an abusive situation. Waiting until you're alone together may seem like the adult, mature, civil way to do it (like I am sure SM thought), but it's dangerous. Pick up and leave and then tell them you're not coming back when you have some distance and protection. Obviously it shouldn't be like this but it very often is.
 
  • #453
Couple thoughts:

1) IMO, BM’s “if one person could be saved” is related to her not getting the divorce. She said in messages to JL that she couldn’t get divorced for “biblical reasons” and then finally told BM she wanted out. BM’s texts in response were worded in a way that makes me wonder more about what church they attended and what type of Christianity they followed. He may try to justify what he did by saying that death is better than divorce.

2) cheating is rarely the problem in the relationship, it is a symptom of the breakdown in communication, honesty, and respect. I think sometimes people focus too much on the act and not the factors that led up to it. I am not going to begrudge a victim of DV for finding an outlet in an impossible marriage. Religious concerns, children, controlling partner, away from family… That is a LOT of outside forces keeping you tied down. Sometimes seeing that better is out there is what gives strength to move forward, I believe that Suzanne was doing the best she could in a ****** situation. It takes immense courage to leave an abusive relationship, especially one where you already feel physically threatened. My heart aches for her not having a better support system.

Solid post. After Barry’s utterances about “saving” I’ve always wondered if it was an excuse to murder Suzanne. To “save” her.
 
  • #454
Well, BM can't pull an insurance scam for the 'missing' cash because insurance companies do not insure cash. Ever.
With all due respect....that is not entirely accurate. Insurance companies can and do insure cash up to specific limits in commercial package policies, against the standard risks, including theft, robbery, fire, etc.... Since businesses, particularly retail types carry cash in the course of doing business, there are limits which do apply; those limits can be selected optionally up to a policy maximum allowable limit.
 
  • #455
Forgive me if this is a stupid question. The overhead helicopter videos I've seen of the Morphew home -- taken days after the events in question -- seem to show a hot tub with a cover on it. Do we know if the hot tub was covered when LE first arrived and if there was water in it?
 
  • #456
Following drugged prey outside as it runs then stumbles around, just intervening enough to keep the prey from going inside the house to pull stuff down. MOO that wouldn't leave struggle evidence or bruises etc.
I know it’s a morbid scenario, but he could wrap his arms around her, cover her mouth until she became unconscious and then slip her into the hot tub.
 
  • #457
I really don't understand the comments suggesting the case against BM is in trouble, after reading a few tweets reported from a hearing in which less than half the listed witnesses testified, the purpose of which is not to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but IMO, to produce evidence sufficient that an ordinary person could have a reasonable belief that the defendant may have committed the crime for which they are charged - i.e. probable cause - and in which the prosecution's evidence must be taken at face value.

There can be no doubt at all that BM will be bound over for trial IMO. It is also certain in my mind (MOO) that we have not seen nearly all the evidence that will be produced at trial. My opinion is that the defense team's aggressive approach to the prelim has given the prosecution information the DA can use to adjust her case, without significant benefit too BM in terms of outcomes.

I think we should remind ourselves periodically of how the jury will be instructed to do its job. (See Colorado Jury Instructions - Criminal).

They will be instructed that there is no difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence:

"D:01 DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE—NO DISTINCTION

A fact may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Under the law, both are acceptable ways to prove something. Neither is necessarily more reliable than the other.
Direct evidence is based on first-hand observation of the fact in question. [For example, a witness’s testimony that he [she] looked out a window and saw snow falling might be offered as direct evidence that it had snowed.]

Circumstantial evidence is indirect. It is based on observations of related facts that may lead you to reach a conclusion about the fact in question. [For example, a witness’s testimony that he [she] looked out a window and saw snow covering the ground might be offered as circumstantial evidence that it had snowed.]

COMMENT

1. See People v. Bennett, 515 P.2d 466, 469 (Colo. 1973) (“we now cast aside as outmoded and as confusing the requirement that the prosecution’s evidence, when wholly circumstantial, must exclude every reasonable hypotheses other than that of guilt and no longer require such aninstruction or such a test to be applied”)."

They don't need evidence on every point of fact - they are allowed to draw reasonable inferences:

"D:11 INFERENCES—GENERAL

A permissible inference allows, but does not require, you to find a fact from proof of another fact or facts, if that conclusion is justified by the evidence as a whole. It is entirely your decision to determine what weight shall be given the evidence.

You must bear in mind that the prosecution always has the burden of proving each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and that a permissible inference does not shift that burden to the defendant.

COMMENT

1. See Jolly v. People, 742 P.2d 891, 897 (Colo. 1987) (provision of statute proscribing driving while license revoked authorized only a permissible inference that defendant had knowledge of fact of revocation from proof of registered mailing of notice, rather than creating a conclusive presumption or mandatory burden-shifting presumption with respect to that element of the offense; the statutory term “prima facie proof” is functionally equivalent to a permissible inference); Barnes v. People, 735 P.2d 869, 872–74 (Colo. 1987) (“a mandatory presumption may not be constitutionally used against a criminal defendant if a reasonable jury could construe it as conclusive or shifting the burden of persuasion on an essential element of a crime”; driving under the influence statute, which provided that it shall be presumed that defendant was under influence of alcohol if there was 0.10 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, as shown by chemical analysis of defendant’s blood, authorized only permissible inference that defendant was under the influence of alcohol); People v. Felgar, 58 P.3d 1122, 1124–25 (Colo. App. 2002) (instruction establishing mandatory presumption concerning the defendant’s knowledge violated due process, even though the instruction tracked the statutory language).

2. In some circumstances, an instruction describing an evidentiary inference may be based on precedent. For example, in cases where evidence of the defendant’s unexplained, exclusive possession of recently stolen goods is relevant (e.g., theft, robbery, burglary), refer to the instruction in the appendix to Wells v. People, 592 P.2d 1321 (Colo. 1979).

See also People v. Hampton, 758 P.2d 1344, 1355 (Colo. 1988) (“In Wells, we . . . appended to our opinion a recommended instruction for use in future jury trials.”).

3. Both the United States Supreme Court and the Colorado Supreme Court have used the terms “permissive inference” and “permissible inference” interchangeably. See, e.g., County Court of Ulster County, N. Y. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 157 (1979) (using both terms within the same paragraph); People in Matter of R.M.D., 829 P.2d 852, 854 (Colo. 1992) (same). Further, it does not appear that any appellate court has ever analyzed whether there is a meaningful distinction between the two terms. Accordingly, the Committee has elected, for the sake of clarity and consistency, to use the term “permissible inference” throughout the model instructions.

Proof beyond all doubt is not required. Reasonable doubt is not a vague, speculative, or imaginary doubt, like we tend to indulge in on WS.

"E:03 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, AND REASONABLE DOUBT

Every person charged with a crime is presumed innocent. This presumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial and should be given effect by you unless, after considering all of the evidence, you are then convinced that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of all of the elements necessary to constitute the crime charged.
Reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon reason and common sense which arises from a fair and rational consideration of all of the evidence, or the lack of evidence, in the case. It is a doubt which is not a vague, speculative or imaginary doubt, but such a doubt as would cause reasonable people to hesitate to act in matters of importance to themselves.

If you find from the evidence that each and every element of a crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of that crime. If you find from the evidence that the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of that crime."

IMO, Barry Morphew is in great jeopardy of spending the rest of his life in prison, reflecting on his mortal sins.
I couldn’t agree more. Three witnesses have been called thus far, and their jobs have been to paint the case against Barry in broad strokes. We now have a general outline of what occurred over the days in question, with two days left for more specific testimony.

A lot of people have said “I couldn’t convict him based on what we’ve heard…”

That’s not the point of the preliminary hearing though.
 
  • #458
I say this without any victim blaming but I wish she would have just picked up and went to her sister's or someone else's house. Ending a relationship is the most dangerous time for a person involved in an abusive situation. Waiting until you're alone together may seem like the adult, mature, civil way to do it (like I am sure SM thought), but it's dangerous. Pick up and leave and then tell them you're not coming back when you have some distance and protection. Obviously it shouldn't be like this but it very often is.
I totally agree. I wonder if her reluctance to leave the marital home was due to a significant amount of her money being tied up in the home. I also wonder if she had consulted a divorce lawyer who recommended that she stay in the house.

It would have been the perfect time to leave right after her younger daughter graduated from high school in May.

JMO
 
Last edited:
  • #459
Forgive me if this is a stupid question. The overhead helicopter videos I've seen of the Morphew home -- taken days after the events in question -- seem to show a hot tub with a cover on it. Do we know if the hot tub was covered when LE first arrived and if there was water in it?
I’ve only ever seen it covered, which is to be expected, as most people keep it covered when not in use. We’ve never heard anything regarding the water level.
 
  • #460
Sadly, I don't think he killed her out on the patio. I also don't think it's possible immobilize a human instantly with a tranquilizer dart - although if he used one intended for, say, a buck...it would probably take only a few minutes. Within those few minutes, the person would become increasingly disoriented and then collapse. If it was ketamine, they might very well still have some consciousness of what was happening.

My view of what happened next is pretty dark and there's no reason to share all of it. What follows may be too much info for some, I'm trying to be delicate.

I would assume that Barry had preassembled the "packaging" he needed and did not use towels, sheets or anything like that.

Barry would have had game bags, for example. You can look it up on Amazon. Every hunter has them.

His goal is to make sure that no evidence of decomp/death is present on his property. As I have posted many times, he had time on his side - because even if she did die on the property (I think it was likely through suffocation), it would have taken several hours for decomp to be even remotely detectable by the world's best cadaver dog. Cadaverine is produced after the enzymatic process that causes rigor mortis has taken place. So he needed to do something such as put her in a large cooler or toolbox, because while others may disagree, I don't think he took an immobilized Suzanne and propped her up on the passenger side of whichever vehicle he used for disposal.

Hunters don't usually hunt humans, but if Suzanne did get a few moments to try to flee, Barry would have grabbed her, snatched her phone, cornered her until the tranq took effect.

I can think of many variations on this scenario and readily see how it appealed to Barry, with his penchant for hunting (which takes planning too). The only part that is still really fuzzy for me is what type of terrain he would have chosen to either bury her or toss her body.

He would either have chosen some place near PP (to keep the bike/abduction theory going - but that's higher risk for him) or, as we all suspect, he went somewhere in a RR without GPS...

Would a cadaver dog be able to hit on a body wrapped in several layers of plastic, then placed in a container, and then put several feet under ground? We simply don't know. Cadaver dogs are not 100% accurate. If the outer container was airtight or nearly so, and the packaging of the body was properly done...I think it would be very tough for a cadaver dog - even now, when the interior of that packaging is fully decomposed.

Of course, disposal could have taken place elsewhere, with a vehicle that has no GPS, in which case, I don't think there's much chance of ever finding Suzanne's body.
I am on that road as well, thinking about the tree container, corn feed burlap sack (50 lb bag is too small for a body, maybe over her head? ), coolers. He could have prepped beforehand and was ready to go. Like in the Sopranos-if you walk into a room and there is a tarp on the floor, you’re in trouble.

Any thought on what Suzanne was “studying”? Was it bible study? Was she taking a course? Continuing Ed for something work related where she was on the books?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
2,563
Total visitors
2,694

Forum statistics

Threads
632,144
Messages
18,622,669
Members
243,034
Latest member
RepresentingTheLBC
Back
Top