Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #79 *ARREST*

[10ofRods]

Thanks for sharing your perspective

I think my big chart and anchor would be a timeline with the digital data for both BM and SM. I would emphasize the time and location of the truck reset as the key big bolded center of the board and build out from there.

Using that as my anchor, I would build out from it with context of the relationship. I would start with her text planning to leave to set that as the stage. I would then amplify the risks associated with leaving at that point in a marriage by adding the (wait there is more….) and introduce any documented references of DV. That would then follow with any other added motives financially of SM leaving: spousal support, life insurance if any existed, anything nefarious she may have had on him regarding business dealings and book keeping (if any was discovered during the investigation).

I would then introduce the extramarital affair as an outlet and emotional coping mechanism for what was being experienced in the marriage. I would want it to come out as part of her story before the defense introduces it. I would also highlight at this point, a belief BM may have come upon her while engaged in an intimate conversation in the very hours of the timeline highlighted. Then introduce the presumed fingernail scratches and the fact that very phone has not been located.

I would then overlay everything laid out with any and all lies that BM may have told. I would also identify and highlight behavior patterns that may have shifted in that week of her text and disappearance. (This would be info co-workers, LE, daughters, etc. would have provided during the investigation and then mapped together.)

Examples might include:
-When was the hotel booked? Was the timeline in sync with the typical timeframe he booked hotels in past?
-Was there anything different about the time he texted SM Mothers Day morning? Was it later than the normal morning text to her when he traveled?
-What was his behavior and demeanor toward her family after she disappeared as compared to before?
-Spending habit changes? Liquidation of Assets? Before knowing she was not returning….
-The behavior of visiting 5 trash disposal locations would be explored. If there was no real activity that occurred in this time window, why dispose at 5 trash locations?

Regarding the daughter: I personally would ONLY put her on the stand if she confirmed the suggested restraining order. If the daughter has stated differently since the investigation, I would not go that path. The daughters I think will be a fine balance. If jurors on the fence are fathers they may be sensitive to the use of the daughters. (Just my personal opinion)

This is my non-attorney, quick in the moment, and limited knowledge of the parties perspective. All just personal opinion of course…

Those are really good things to work in. However, I do believe the timeline should start with the first known incidences of DV...and a good explanation that the term doesn't just mean beating someone up (because that's what most people think it means, sadly). To me it doesn't matter that it's an enhancement - the goal is to get him convicted of some type of murder, so that the enhancement can be used.

I like your idea of starting with the timeline. I usually do some definitions, myself, before heading into any kind of timeline, because people's eyes glaze over with timelines (I am so comfortable with timelines - as most WSers are - that I forget how hard they are for other people to use and keep in mind). I'd make my timeline in this case go horizontally and be roughly to scale (to show escalating amounts of conflict), mainly so that the timeline stands out from the other charges, where people read from top to bottom.

I'd love to know when the hotel was booked (I think it was booked quite a bit earlier - as it turns out that there was a permit for the crew to work on Monday 11, they knew they were supposed to stay up there on Sunday night and apparently MG thought Barry was going to drive her up there, sometime late Sunday afternoon).

I don't know how much weight I could on when he sent the Mother's Day texts. He sent one to his mom at about 8:30 am her time, seems thoughtful, normal. He sent more than one text to Suzanne, IIRC.

I think there's going to be a ton of financial info and of course, the trash dumps are quite incriminating.

Yes, I'm assuming that the daughter has confirmed something along those lines - and in fact, one of the reasons the AA is sealed is that it's entirely possible that the daughters were asked early on, while still in a state of excitement about their mother just disappearing, whether they knew of any domestic problems. LE surely asked about the broken down bedroom door frame (and I do think one person tweeted that there were "shards" of wood, so an estimate of when it happened should be possible).

It's interesting you'd think father-jurors would be more sensitive to the daughter(s) being on the stand. There are ways around putting them on the stand if they told investigators certain things or signed some kind of statement for LE. However, there are several points in this trial where the jury will be wondering why the daughters aren't asked (How often did Suzanne go biking? Did Barry ever yell at Suzanne? Did Suzanne ever speak of moving back to the house in Indiana? Had the daughters heard about any financial troubles?) There are perhaps others willing to testify on this matter (I can think of one person immediately) so perhaps MM2's testimony will not be so important. Also, sadly, since MM1 quickly (IMO) signed off on the conservatorship so that Dad could take over Suzanne's assets, she surely must have thought her mom was not coming back - and that goes to proof of death. The actions of Barry and MM1 around selling property and taking over Suzanne's community properly are not those of people who expect Mom to be coming home - ever.

I see one and possibly more. If it helps, @Ontario Mom , these are (or at least what I see) are the small round bandaids, not the typical rectangular ones such as you might be looking for. See if that changes what you see?



Where my thinking snags on this is -- if the laces were used in the crime, that means they were no longer attached to the boots at the time. Meaning BM couldn't have been wearing those boots at the time (well, unless he was sloshing around in them laceless which seems unlikely).

Wasn't there a cctv image of him carrying the boots into the HIE? Why would he do that if they were both laceless and not dirtied during the crime? Wouldn't he just toss the boots in one of the dumpster runs?

The only reasons I can think of to bring a pair of boots into a hotel room would be: if he intended to wear them, or if he was actually intending to remove the laces, or to attempt to clean them.

He would have no need to clean about-to-be tossed-out boots except to try to hide evidence, which IMO wouldn't exist on the boots unless he was wearing them at the time of the crime.

Hmm, upon further thought, if he thought something evidentiary had gotten on the boots during the crime, wouldn't he think it might also be on the laces and just toss the whole thing, tightwad or not? Maybe the boots are not actually relevant at all. If he tied SM in any way, or tied up a bag etc she was in or related to the crime, especially at his own home, he would have lots of normal options like twine, twist wire etc without needing to resort to shoelaces... MOO

If he knew in advance he was going to throw away the boots he wore to place Suzanne's body where ever it is, then he surely would have gotten rid of the laces as well - they'd hold as much forensic evidence as the soles, IMO. He seems to have been concerned about such things as dirt on the undercarriage of his truck and the insects/dirt on the windshield. So he knew that LE could use those things to begin to pinpoint where she was.

I don't think he found the use of ties necessary until later in the crime. Perhaps the laces and the boots are irrelevant, and maybe he took the laces home to wash them (I bet he did clean up the boots before disposing of them). If he transported Suzanne while she was still alive, he may have encountered circumstances he did not anticipate (she may have begun to move around, even if still sedated).

Shoelace use would be an improvised response, for sure. But I sense that there was quite a bit of improvisation in the end. Enough, anyway, that if it can be uncovered, we'll know way more about what happened. I wonder where those shoelaces are, today.

Anyway, I bet Barry kept an extra set of boots in his car and obviously had some shoes of some kind to change into, because I bet he didn't walk into the hotel barefoot or in his socks. If he did have to use the shoelaces in some fashion, during the crime, it would have been not that big a deal to walk in boots without shoe laces back to the car. The still usable shoelaces on the disposed boots should have been found either in the hotel room or in his truck when he returned...I bet that they were not found.

Intimate Partner Femicide Timeline - Research Repository

Not sure if this will work, and I know that in earlier threads the 8 steps timeline by Dr Moncton Smith has been discussed.. but (if link works properly) this should take anyone who is interested to the intimate partner femicide section, which can be downloaded. From page 13-20 it gives warning signs for each step of the timeline, just thought, for those who may not have read it, they may find interesting and insightful, also, not too sure bout 1st 2 steps but I think from step 3 onwards it is most definitely relevant to Suzanne's life with BM and can correlate what we've learnt to each step.

Really hope link works

It does! And that's exactly the kind of expert work the jury needs to hear - that the entire nation needs to hear, if they're paying attention. It is most definitely relevant and can probably be used to interpret the homicide timeline. It would be a bit ground-breaking (to rely on experts in this area for staging out the crime), but I think this is the very case where it could work.

 

[marylamby]

I think calling himself a cheapskate is a way to justify some of his behavior, namely: possible control of money, shoelaces, illegally dumping trash, and working on Mother’s Day.

It doesn’t really seem like he’s a cheapskate though. They had an expensive home, expensive cars and vacations. Suzanne’s diamond looked expensive.

If it was real and high quality. The rest of her jewelry was very modest, from what I could tell in pictures.
Suzanne paid for most of the home. His truck is a business write off. He proudly stated that he was her ATM, imo.
However, I don't think he was waiting for a free breakfast, repurposing shoelaces nor had planned in advance to 'work' on Mother's Day.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I see bandaids, though. Not scratches. As pixelated as it is (and I too work with images on a daily basis and wish I had my best monitor here at home, but what I've got is good enough). I can plainly see two rectangular flesh covered objects raised on the skin. I can't quite make out the third. However, this appears to be his right arm and not his left. It's possible he just has strange skin, I suppose, but to me it's cleared at least a raised area on his arm.

I have now read tweets that say a picture was shown in court of the scratches, but some here are saying this was not true (so I hope @NoSI can weigh in on that one).

If they didn't take pictures of his arm (and in fact, of both arms and both hands), LE really messed up.

How funny that I thought I was seeing the little round kind of bandaids. Now I think I can see one rectangular one. But it could all be pixellation...

 

[10ofRods]

Lol and you are correct. But never mind, I found it looking up his baseball stats. He is right handed. I was just thinking how SM left fingernail marks only on his upper left arm.

Barry Morphew Minor Leagues Statistics & History | Baseball-Reference.com

Because she's right-handed?

 

[marylamby]

How funny that I thought I was seeing the little round kind of bandaids. Now I think I can see one rectangular one. But it could all be pixellation...

I'm pretty sure I see one but due to the pixels, it's hard to tell on the rest of his arm.

 

[marylamby]

Because she's right-handed?

Doesn't matter. When fighting for your life, any hand will do.

 

[NoSI]

Thanks, @NoSI!

No problemo, @OldCop! Anytime! And, BTW, you give me way too much credit, but thank you so much for your kind words. It did make my day!

 

[steeltowngirl]

IIRC, the obituary for Suzanne's father requested donations on Gene’s behalf be made to domestic violence organizations.

It proves nothing legally, but it said a lot to me.

jmo

 

[Trocroc9]

hmm. Interested in more of your thoughts about this!

Mostly no good, bad, horrible scenarios of SM’s last minutes of life. If she could only get one arm around to scratch his left upper arm then he might have had her other arm pinned. Sorry so dark. And just a made up scenario but I would think if she had both arms free she would be scratching like crazy and both arms would be marked up. All Jmo.

 

[al66pine]

Boot Laces?

“Shoelaces”…why does one keep shoelaces? If I missed something, my apologies.

@Pink2017 Why keep?*
{{{ETA: Tagging others posting re bootlaces, just fyi
@Diddian. @justtrish @EggSalad. @scapa @DizzyB @Auntie Cipation @Seattle1 @Blue Amethyst }}}
BM' laces stmt: Iirc, at PH LE said BM said, he carried boots & other items into HIE room, then removed laces, then carried boots out again, to throw away because boots had holes in them, but kept the laces because they were still good/usable.

What can state do w BM's stmt? Is there HIE or other vid of boots? IDK. If so, does it corroborate BM's stmt to LE? IDK, but let's say prosecutor does have corroborating vid. avail for trial.

Q: Should state use or not use that vid or LE's testimony re BM's stmt at trial?
A: Depends on state's theory of BM's use of laces & when used.

Q: Does BM's stmt w or w/out vid incriminate him?
A: No, not either one, in and of itself

Q: Is BM's laces stmt hinky?
A: Yes yes, yes. Plausible? Maybe.

Q: If state uses to say/suggest BM used laces to restrain or strangle SM?
A1: If prosecution's theory is BM restrained/strangled her at home, or before BM arrived at hotel, then logically/likely boot laces would no longer be in boots. If she was strangled/restrained, he poss'ly left body/disposed of elsewhere (& assume state has no evd of where), before BM went to HIE.
So imo, may not be good evd for state to use.
A2. OTOH if state's theory is before BM arrived w laced boots at HIE, SM was still alive, then he did not use laces to strangle or restrain her prior to that. Or If he did use laces for that, then he put laces back into boots. What?
Nah, not very logical. my2ct.

Someone here ) sorry forgot who, but TYVM) suggested if BM's stmt to LE which LE repeated at PH is factual, then the reason BM may have taken laced boots into HIE to clean boots, but was unsuccessful in cleaning, so decided to throw boots away. That seems possible too. If state uses that idea it's consistent w BM's stmt, but adds the cleaning step he neglected to mention.
Lots of good ideas here.

BTW, do we know if BM's boots even had laces? Seems likely, but he wore cowboy boots at PH.
________________________________________________
* Why keep? Because they're usable for footwear or other purpose (a cat toy w feather?) If person buys new laces for med./hard worn boots, then boots wear out, some would remove laces for next/new pair of boots at same time as tossing the holey boots. Or__?

 

[DeDee]

A used Range Rover, even one that is five years old, is still worth more than many brand new vehicles.

I guess. Of course, I checked with Edmunds regarding the value of a 2005 Range Rover prior to writing my original post.
"How much is a 2005 Land Rover Range Rover worth? The value of a used 2005 Land Rover Range Rover ranges from $1,643 to $4,593, based on vehicle condition, mileage, and options. " 2005 Land Rover Range Rover Value - $1,738-$4,551 | Edmunds
And, also, Kelley's Blue Book and carfax "The original MSRP of the 2005 Land Rover Range Rover is from $73,750." 2005 Land Rover Range Rover for Sale (with Photos) - CARFAX

Prices vary widely depending upon available options of which I am unaware. For the money, not a SUV as I prefer the Jaquar simply because I enjoy driving a fast car.

Besides, we weren't discussing the cost of a Range Rover. The OP was opining about Barry having new cars. My point was that Suzanne's 5 yr car is not considered to be new by me, so it's just my very humble opinion.

O/T There is a potential Cat 3 Hurricane bearing down on us that requires a mandatory evacuation. Sunday is the 16th Anniversary of Katrina.
.

 

[CGray123]

That's generally how it goes just the bare facts needed plus whatever is felt needed to push the judge to bind the defendant over for trial...but they have a lot more latitude in a preliminary because it is investigators impressions...especially in this case. So they shared some factual data and wove what they believe might have happened. Trials are much tighter about what gets said...and generally it's first hand testimony, data or from experts. That is why the bar is low for preliminaries....and also why the judge was concerned about the things in the arrest affidavit that wouldn't be allowed at trial. I'm repeating myself but I like Scott Reisch's analogy about believing and knowing. I have taken that and applied it for myself to preliminaries about believing something and trials are about knowing something. Since the preliminary is over I've mentally moved on to what do we "know" that can be verified first hand or through data or through experts. And of course there could be some things we don't know that for some reason the prosecutors chose not to use in the preliminary....but defense knows what the prosecution knows from disclosure.

BBM. I remind myself often that the jury will be able to "know" much more than facts verified by experts. They are allowed to find a fact from proof of another fact or facts, and to use circumstantial evidence to make their findings.

If I were the prosecutor, I would use voir dire to educate the jury by asking each of them questions related to these instructions from the Colorado Jury Instructions - Civil.

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.

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 an instruction or such a test to be applied”).

 

[JosieMae]

It's always curious to me when we have a highly pixelated image here how folks can see all sorts of things in it, and others can't see a thing. I work with photoshop every day in my professional life, and that image wouldn't pass anyone's professional sniff test since it's at such a low resolution and clarity. There could be scratches on his arm, but I'm not seeing them in this image.

I agree. In any case, wasn’t the TD video made a couple of weeks after the May 10th?

 

[Love Never Fails]

As per @Love Never Fails thread #78:
I would love a firsthand account of the demeanor of Suzanne’s daughters and of BM during the last day of testimony. It’s hard to believe the girls haven’t realized the truth by now.

So, there was a definite change in the demeanor and energy of BM, his family, and the defense team when comparing Monday and Tuesday afternoon. For example, on Monday, BM seemed almost giddy. I also saw the daughters with family prior to the hearing laughing and hugging each other. In that moment, they appeared carefree, for a lack of a better word. However, throughout the day on Monday, I did look over at his family a few times and the daughters looked like they had been crying at times and also very tired. On Tuesday, BM and his attorney’s still looked pretty confident throughout the hearing. After the Judge didn’t make a decision, this all changed. BM almost collapsed onto himself on the table in front of him. His head was either in his hands, held up by his arm, and for a time, he also had his head resting on the table. The demeanor of his defense team also shifted. For a while, the attorneys seem to comfort him before moving on to packing up their documents, during which time BM was sitting there all alone. Once they had packed up the documents, one of his attorney’s sat on his left and the other on his right. I don’t think that the daughters where in the room when the decision was announced Tuesday afternoon. I am fairly certain that everyone on his side thought he would walk out as a free man/or at least on bail on Tuesday. I also believe that his family still believes he is innocent based on how they are acting etc.

Hi NoSi. Thanks for confirming what I guessed would be the demeanors of at least the daughters. Seems there have been highs and lows but the Daily Mail had some pictures in which they seemed to look quite happy.

I had wondered if BM really did expect his lawyers would get him out on bail or maybe the judge would drop charges. Even though I didn’t learn much from the PH, there are so many things that weren’t even touched on. The judge knows what those things are. What puzzles me is that BM now knows what those things are too so why would he believe he could walk out of the courtroom? Why would his attorneys allow him to believe that?

And him dropping his head in his hands as an act of defeat, was that all for show? Surely reality had set in before that time?

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Boot Laces?
@Pink2017 Why keep?*

BM' laces stmt: Iirc, at PH LE said BM said, he carried boots & other items into HIE room, then removed laces, then carried boots out again, to throw away because boots had holes in them, but kept the laces because they were still good/usable.

What can state do w BM's stmt? Is there HIE or other vid of boots? IDK. If so, does it corroborate BM's stmt to LE? IDK, but let's say prosecutor does have corroborating vid. avail for trial.

Q: Should state use or not use that vid or LE's testimony re BM's stmt at trial?
A: Depends on state's theory of BM's use of laces & when used.

Q: Does BM's stmt w or w/out vid incriminate him?
A: No, not either one, in and of itself

Q: Is BM's laces stmt hinky?
A: Yes yes, yes. Plausible? Maybe.

Q: If state uses to say/suggest BM used laces to restrain or strangle SM?
A1: If prosecution's theory is BM restrained/strangled her at home, or before BM arrived at hotel, then logically/likely boot laces would no longer be in boots. If she was strangled/restrained, he poss'ly left body/disposed of elsewhere (& assume state has no evd of where), before BM went to HIE.
So imo, may not be good evd for state to use.
A2. OTOH if state's theory is before BM arrived w laced boots at HIE, SM was still alive, then he did not use laces to strangle or restrain her prior to that. Or If he did use laces for that, then he put laces back into boots. What?
Nah, not very logical. my2ct.

Someone here ) sorry forgot who, but TYVM) suggested if BM's stmt to LE which LE repeated at PH is factual, then the reason BM may have taken laced boots into HIE to clean boots, but was unsuccessful in cleaning, so decided to throw boots away. That seems possible too. If state uses that idea it's consistent w BM's stmt, but adds the cleaning step he neglected to mention.
Lots of good ideas here.

BTW, do we know if BM's boots even had laces? Seems likely, but he wore cowboy boots at PH.
________________________________________________
* Why keep? Because they're usable for footwear or other purpose (a cat toy w feather?) If person buys new laces for med./hard worn boots, then boots wear out, some would remove laces for next/new pair of boots at same time as tossing the holey boots. Or__?

I thought we had read that the HIE parking lot cameras had captured an image of BM visibly carrying boots into the hotel. If this is true and if the image is of sufficient quality, the presence of laces dangling down may be visible (although the absence would not be proof they were missing, as they could have been tucked inside). IMO

Second, to clarify, my thought wasn't that he would have kept the boots if he could have cleaned them well enough, but that he was attempting to remove identifiable evidence before tossing them. MOO

Also, re his cowboy boots, I'm pretty sure those are considered "dressy" or fancy by BM (and most folks who aren't actually on a horse on a daily basis) and certainly not what he would wear while doing landscaping work. MOO

 

[Honeynut]

@Tiff23fr Thanks for asking about my (amateur) game plan. I'd love to bounce my ideas off of you (we're in similar fields) and also off the legal eagles here.

(TL;DR - DV; timeline; witness will show motive, means and opportunity to commit the crime of murdering Suzanne Morphew).

Domestic violence and the danger of divorce would be my first topic, with all the evidence of Barry's pre-disappearance control (an expert witness on DV; Barry controlling the money; SO's and Suzanne's sister's testimony about a violent marriage; probably put the daughter who recommended a restraining order on the stand (gently) and I'd also ask her if the door frame had been broken the last time she was at the house; the nose clipping event; the times he pinned her down to the bed; the time he threw her into a closet and held a gun to his head; all his suicide messages; then put the expert back on the stand to give a statement about how suicidal controlling spouses often turn homicidal. The fact that women are most vulnerable to murder (femicide) when they try to leave would get hammered home. I'd also have a chart of all the things that constitute DV (it's not just punching people, shoving and blocking exits and "clipping" in the face while making wild hand gestures, getting in someone's face, yelling, threatening, financial control, sexual control, implicit threats of violence - such as "bumping" one's big muscular body up against someone to herd them around as if they are a deer, religious control, gaslighting, blaming the victim - all of that needs to be discussed and good graphics made). How abusers try to isolate the victim more and more, to control and to silence them.

Then I'd start the timeline of how Suzanne planned to leave (starting with her financial moves to try and get some money to go, constantly reiterating how secretive she needed to be). Starting May 6, the timeline will ramp up and begin to include Barry Morphew's opportunity (daughters gone, Suzanne alone, poor cellular connection, distance between houses in that area and his motivation (financial and she's leaving). I'd go into Barry Morphew's financial patterns (including his dependence on Suzanne for big sums of money). Barry's actions from May 6-11th would be combed over with a fine tooth comb. He has no alibi. I'd try to establish that his financial motivation was huge, that he carried a gun around the house, that he admitted shooting the gun on May 9th, and I'd introduce the broken door frame. I'd have a map of the larger area and another of the PP house. I'd include the elk head with flesh attached outside the house to attract mountain lions, I'd include his rapid move to get conservatorship, his getting rid of Suzanne's things, his bizarre statement about saving just one person, his exchange of his truck for a new one, and his selling of the RR (maybe two RR's) and his sale of the Indiana house. I'd hope that SO has information about Suzanne wanting to move back to Indiana. I'd bring in any witnesses who could explain that Barry believed only death could end a marriage and Suzanne's statements about Barry permitting no discussion of divorce ("because it will never happen.") Here, I believe it's tricky. Surely JL can testify to Suzanne's reasoning about divorce, at least to some degree. Anyway, this would be the timeline section (I'm really good at drawing timelines myself, with color coding and I would have slides and when all the timeline was put together, it would be highly incriminating). Barry had opportunity, he had means, he had motive. The scratch marks would be presented in this part. I'd probably also have a local LE witness talk about how it's a small town and many already knew Barry and that his reputation as a friendly, God-loving man made them reluctant to draw the conclusion that he was a murderer, and have that person tell why their mind changed. I'd include his attempt to influence MG as a witness. I'd include the lies he told to his nephew (put the nephew on the stand).

I'd include the financial forensics in the timeline section. This would include all the evidence the Suzanne did not voluntarily leave.

There'd be quite a bit of testimony, but I'd boil it down to a simple timeline and that timeline would be there at the summation. Obviously, the trash dump would be a big part of it.

Then I'd do all his lies in a big chart (how his story changed many times). The reset of the truck's GPS would be part of this (another set of experts here - to do car and phone GPS, including from a third phone which I believe he used in this crime and evidence of Suzanne's phone from the Cloud). I know Barry made more than just trash run stops and that LE has evidence of him out and about on May 9-10 (the evidence that caused Monarch Pass highway to be shut for a day - even if they didn't find much, they had reason to believe Barry had been in certain places - where Suzanne's body may still be hidden). I'd describe the searches for Suzanne and why Barry was excluded from official searches and how he behaved when Andy tried to search. I'd put Andy on the stand. His lack of cooperation and lying to the investigators needs to be strongly emphasized (not just because of that one charge, but for the whole case). He had knowledge of his own guilt. He also lies. I'd include lies told to the Moorman family about not being part of the loan (despite borrowing money to invest in community property). I'd include his lying about working on Sunday in Broomfield. The reset of the GPS would be emphasized as evidence that Suzanne was disposed of. I'd certainly mention the tranquilizer material, of course and bring in an expert to tell how that would help Barry avoid certain kinds of forensic evidence.

Then I'd wrap up with witnesses who could speak for Suzanne in some way. If that one pastor can be brought to the stand to repeat what Barry said to her, that'd be great too. But I'd have SO back on the stand, Suzanne's sister, one or both of the daughters, anyone who could read out Suzanne's grievance list, the texts between Suzanne and her supporters. If necessary, I'd address the issue of why they left Indiana (if defense claims it's due to the affair, I'd counter with it was due to Barry becoming increasingly violent - even in the workplace, of which there are two examples where there are witnesses). I'd imply that Suzanne wanted out, but that Barry had cornered her.

(And then I think about getting lucky...does the prosecution have witnesses from the gym who might know if Barry used steroids? Because I think he did...did Suzanne reveal anything to the Ritters about the state of the marriage - that would a lucky break; what about that DV group? etc What does SD know? )

I'd take the risk of putting one or both daughters on the stand, or at least Macy (I believe she really did advise her mother to get out and get a restraining order and I believe she's seen way more than we know). I don't think Macy will lie on the stand.

I'm stumped as to whether Barry actually had affairs. We all thought he did, but so far, no evidence that he did - except that he's with SD within two months after Suzanne disappears and SD's BF seems to believe she was already involved with Barry at the time of Suzanne's disappearance - that's just an intuition of mine after seeing his picture in the crowd at the first presser - but I think he knows when they got together).

At any rate, I'd make this trial about the dramatic story of a beautiful young woman who marries a man who truly believes he's in charge of her and that physical intimidation is just how he roles. If Barry is acquitted (by those 1-2 jurors who deep inside agree with him), at least the story of Suzanne's life, her endurance of DV, and the fact that apparently happy, well-to-do families may not actually be happy. That "Godly" men are capable of deception and I'd want to leave the jurors with a strong notion of Barry Morphew as deceptive and the exact opposite of what some members of his community thought him to be.

And I"d fervently hope that he was found guilty of all the charges, but if not, at least of felony possession of an illegal weapon and felony deception of the 8 LE/public officials. Because I do not want Barry to own any guns or be in possession of any guns for the rest of his life.

No more hunting for Barry.

Applause!

 

[sunshine4040]

IICR, BM texted SM asking her " Have you got the new tires put on the RR?"
Well, a lot of crimes are helped solved by footprints and tire tracks.
I think he was really worried about foot prints being found being liked back to his boots?
He took the laces as a trophy. He seems like that kind. IMO

 

[Warwick7]

IIRC, the obituary for Suzanne's father requested donations on Gene’s behalf be made to domestic violence organizations.

It proves nothing legally, but it said a lot to me.

jmo

And I think it was meant to.
I have always thought that was just one more message he was sending to BM. As in..."We know what you did."

 

[Momofthreeboys]

IIRC, the obituary for Suzanne's father requested donations on Gene’s behalf be made to domestic violence organizations.

It proves nothing legally, but it said a lot to me.

jmo

it said to me Andy was highly influenced by outside sources and he may have had a contribution to writing the obit. But it is a good cause and something Suzanne would have supported no doubt.

 

[10ofRods]

Doesn't matter. When fighting for your life, any hand will do.

My point is that from a forensic point of view, if two people struggle, one expects to see the right-handed person's scratch marks on the assailant's left shoulder (as we have heard in this case). Because that injury to the shoulder occurs when people are more or less face-to-face and people usually can free and use their stronger arm/hand. Further, people usually hold phones in their non-dominant hand (because they swipe and type with their dominant hand). So if a tussle is going down, it's not uncommon for an assailant to grab the left hand (with the phone) to get the phone first...

(I'm just saying that it fits a commonly seen scenario in DV).