Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #61 *ARREST*

[BeckyF]

Inflammatory What?
Judge's Order's "Analysis" recapped Def. arguments to limit AA release,
including "preventing the release of inflammatory information contained in the Affidavit,..." and (blah, blah).

Sarc Alert: Inflammatory information. What kind of argument is that?
This relates to Murder 1; it's not a letter of recommendation for church deacon. Shouldn't the AA contain some inflammatory information? Well, inflammatory for those who think negatively about an alleged murderer. Does not necessarily need to be inflammatory language. my2ct

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/21CR78 Order Limit Public Redacted.pdf

This made me laugh! Very good!

 

[Deleted member 222031]

I think "inflammatory" just means information that points to Barry being guilty, or that makes him look bad. The Affidavit is supposed to contain only evidence that supports probable cause for the charges, so I doubt there are any details not related to the case.

But yes, I'm sure there are plenty of pages of information that might arouse a lot of emotion, especially anger and shock. Imo

According to the judge, a significant portion of the AA is not relevant to the finding of probable cause and possibly not admissible. See screenshot from page 3. It appears to me the judge clearly finds fault with the "details" & questions why they were included in the AA.

 

[Boxer]

According to the judge, a significant portion of the AA is not relevant to the finding of probable cause and possibly not admissible. See screenshot from page 3. It appears to me the judge clearly finds fault with the "details" & questions why they were included in the AA.

MOO more information is allowed in the AA than eventually will be in court, for instance hearsay is allowed in the probable cause.
Judge Murphy was Public Defender and supervised the Public Defenders Office before becoming a judge, maybe he is preemptively speaking for the defense?

 

[Deleted member 222031]

MOO more information is allowed in the AA than eventually will be in court, for instance hearsay is allowed in the probable cause.
Judge Murphy was Public Defender and supervised the Public Defenders Office before becoming a judge, maybe he is preemptively speaking for the defense?

This^^^
I believe the judge is biased toward the defense. And I think that is a problem. He needs to appear impartial. One reason I don't like the withholding of the AA from the public is I feel the judge's decision to seal it until August shields him from questions about whether he is an impartial party. I don't want to impugn the judge's character but it is fair to ask.

 

[MsBetsy]

This must be right.

Under the Victim Rights Act, "victims" under the extended definition get a right: "To receive a free copy of the initial incident report from the investigating law enforcement agency; except that the release of a document associated with the investigation is at the discretion of the law enforcement agency based on the status of the case or security and safety concerns in a correctional facility, local jail, or private contract prison." No other special access to records.

I think when the judge made reference to the daughters' decision to read, or not to read, the arrest affidavit, he must have meant when it is released to the general public. They may think long and hard about that.

But I think they know all they need to know, and maybe the significance is sinking in. A terrible time for them.

Considering the gravity of the case, I would think investigators will give the family the option of reviewing the evidence in the Affidavit before it's made public.

If the girls have been listening to and believing Barry all this time, I doubt they know all they need to know. They may know all they want to know, but they probably haven't learned all the facts yet. Imo

 

[MsBetsy]

According to the judge, a significant portion of the AA is not relevant to the finding of probable cause and possibly not admissible. See screenshot from page 3. It appears to me the judge clearly finds fault with the "details" & questions why they were included in the AA.

Yes, I know. I was referring to the "inflammatory" information in the affidavit and what that might mean. Whether it is relevant or not, it has the potential to cause an angry response from the public as well as a lot of speculation, which I think the judge is trying to avoid. Imo

 

[Cassady]

Yes, that was The Defendant describing it as such. The judge kept it sealed of course but he wasn't the one that called it "inflammatory", that was BM's defen

The defense likely made various arguments against releasing the AW Affidavit. The Court cited to that argument because “inflammatory” and “prejudicial” are often used synonymously in the 402/403 analysis that the Court was referring to in the opinion when it stated that a large portion of the information in the AWA was not used for the probable cause determination and may not be admissible at trial. The fact the Court singled that argument out, cited examples of potentially inadmissible evidence used in the AWA (that was redacted from the Order) and then used that as part of the basis for the decision to keep the AWA sealed is significant….IMO.

Releasing information to the public that may be inadmissible in a high-profile murder case would be bad for both the government and the defendant. The State apparently did not vet their AWA so that it was clean and without inadmissible evidence. When they do not object to the release of the AWA prior to the preliminary hearing, it starts to raise questions.

My initial thoughts on the lengthy AWA were that it was a long investigation, involving multiple agencies and layers of scientific evidence and data. I assumed it was written by a veteran detective whose training and experience portion of the affidavit was multiple pages in and of itself. The Courts opinion made it seem like a large portion of the AWA was questionable and excessive. According to the opinion, the portions that were relevant to PC for arrest are circumstantial.

It should be noted that even some evidence that might be inadmissible at trial, will be admitted at the preliminary hearing, which is why the Court is trying to protect the integrity of the witness before they testify, especially those that may provide hearsay testimony at the Prelim…IMO!

 

[CGray123]

Considering the gravity of the case, I would think investigators will give the family the option of reviewing the evidence in the Affidavit before it's made public.

If the girls have been listening to and believing Barry all this time, I doubt they know all they need to know. They may know all they want to know, but they probably haven't learned all the facts yet. Imo

You're probably right. Here is what I am thinking. BOTH BM and SM created a fantasy image of their marriage for others - especially for their daughters. They hid the tensions, the disputes, the resentments, the anger - appropriately IMO while the daughters' brains were (and are) in development, in the interest of Christian character formation (this latter interest may have been SM's and not BM's). But since last Mothers Day, this fantasy image has been shattered. These are kind and loving girls, but they are intelligent girls, too. They have their mother's gift for discernment as well as her gift for love. Until the arrest, it was possible to believe that LE was simply focused on BM because he was the last person known to see SM, and they had no other leads. His suggestions that SM was the victim of a puma attack, or a stranger abduction could be plausible so long as they were without official contradiction. But unless they are brainwashed, the daughters must now confront, or turn away from, the facts that led to their father's arrest. That will take a while, and they may continue to resist even contemplating the possibility, but the arrest and the charge is, to me, all they need to know to begin that process. The judge's compassion has given them time to decide whether they are even open to the possibility that their beloved father killed their beloved mother, and what that means for them. But the arrest has forced the issue.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

One thing I would say is the judge's emphasis on the feelings of the daughters to the exclusion of other victims. My reaction is not to double down on protecting the daughters but to focus on the nature of the crime as a matter of outrageous insult to the community at large. The entire response of the order overlooks any good reason to release as superfluous while the interests of those he wishes to protect are primary. JMHO

 

[CGray123]

The defense likely made various arguments against releasing the AW Affidavit. The Court cited to that argument because “inflammatory” and “prejudicial” are often used synonymously in the 402/403 analysis that the Court was referring to in the opinion when it stated that a large portion of the information in the AWA was not used for the probable cause determination and may not be admissible at trial. The fact the Court singled that argument out, cited examples of potentially inadmissible evidence used in the AWA (that was redacted from the Order) and then used that as part of the basis for the decision to keep the AWA sealed is significant….IMO.

Releasing information to the public that may be inadmissible in a high-profile murder case would be bad for both the government and the defendant. The State apparently did not vet their AWA so that it was clean and without inadmissible evidence. When they do not object to the release of the AWA prior to the preliminary hearing, it starts to raise questions.

My initial thoughts on the lengthy AWA were that it was a long investigation, involving multiple agencies and layers of scientific evidence and data. I assumed it was written by a veteran detective whose training and experience portion of the affidavit was multiple pages in and of itself. The Courts opinion made it seem like a large portion of the AWA was questionable and excessive. According to the opinion, the portions that were relevant to PC for arrest are circumstantial.

It should be noted that even some evidence that might be inadmissible at trial, will be admitted at the preliminary hearing, which is why the Court is trying to protect the integrity of the witness before they testify, especially those that may provide hearsay testimony at the Prelim…IMO!

BBM. If I understand correctly, circumstantial evidence is not only the most common evidence in criminal trials, it is also among the most powerful evidence. If the ground is dry when I go to sleep and wet when I arise, do I need to see the rain fall during the night to know what happened? Can I not reasonably infer from the circumstances? I am not sure what the court meant by this. Can you explain?

 

[swedeheart]

The Interview Room3 hours ago (edited)
I wanted to share with you a few things that have been on my heart and pressing on my mind. Over the course of my career, I’ve seen many wonderful lives taken from criminal domestic violence (DV) incidents. As I write this, I can’t help but think about some of the horrendous DV murders that I’ve investigated. The 4 most common motives for homicide are love, lust, loathing and money. Under the guise of love in a DV homicide involving a married couple, one spouse accuses the other of having an affair or actually has an affair, and somehow snaps and commits murder or lays the foundation to premeditate a murder. Later in court, they are painted by their attorney(s) as the victim. I know it’s outrageous to think that anyone who kills the one they loved the most because they could no longer work things out ends up in a courtroom seeking empathy. Let’s use Betty Broderick as an example. We watched Betty in San Diego years ago on the witness stand tell everyone about her ex-husband, Dan Broderick, and why she shot him and his new wife in their bed. Well, she actually said she can’t recall pulling the trigger, she just heard a loud bang. Or how about Scott Peterson or Chris Watts. So far watching Barry Morphew’s defense -- as he’s accused in the murder of his wife, Suzanne Morphew -- start to move, don’t be surprised if Suzanne is subtly painted as the suspect and Barry the victim. I’m going on the record saying don’t be fooled by the smoke and mirrors from the defense. No behavior from any victim justifies murder and mutilation of the body. None! My experience tells me that the defense has already started to lay a foundation of empathy. If Barry is seeking empathy, I suggest he share with law enforcement the whereabouts of his wife. My experience has also taught me that couples drift apart after years of mental, physical, emotional and spiritual abuse. Just look at Chad Daybell allegedly taking out his wife, Tammy, for Lori Vallow. In the perpetrator’s mind, they continue to twist the victimology and reflect it back into themselves as classic narcissists. Barry is a master, and his attorneys will become his servants. Let’s be clear. Suzanne Morphew is the victim of a mutilation homicide.
Show less

 

[Orgona]

The Interview Room3 hours ago (edited)
I wanted to share with you a few things that have been on my heart and pressing on my mind. Over the course of my career, I’ve seen many wonderful lives taken from criminal domestic violence (DV) incidents. As I write this, I can’t help but think about some of the horrendous DV murders that I’ve investigated. The 4 most common motives for homicide are love, lust, loathing and money. Under the guise of love in a DV homicide involving a married couple, one spouse accuses the other of having an affair or actually has an affair, and somehow snaps and commits murder or lays the foundation to premeditate a murder. Later in court, they are painted by their attorney(s) as the victim. I know it’s outrageous to think that anyone who kills the one they loved the most because they could no longer work things out ends up in a courtroom seeking empathy. Let’s use Betty Broderick as an example. We watched Betty in San Diego years ago on the witness stand tell everyone about her ex-husband, Dan Broderick, and why she shot him and his new wife in their bed. Well, she actually said she can’t recall pulling the trigger, she just heard a loud bang. Or how about Scott Peterson or Chris Watts. So far watching Barry Morphew’s defense -- as he’s accused in the murder of his wife, Suzanne Morphew -- start to move, don’t be surprised if Suzanne is subtly painted as the suspect and Barry the victim. I’m going on the record saying don’t be fooled by the smoke and mirrors from the defense. No behavior from any victim justifies murder and mutilation of the body. None! My experience tells me that the defense has already started to lay a foundation of empathy. If Barry is seeking empathy, I suggest he share with law enforcement the whereabouts of his wife. My experience has also taught me that couples drift apart after years of mental, physical, emotional and spiritual abuse. Just look at Chad Daybell allegedly taking out his wife, Tammy, for Lori Vallow. In the perpetrator’s mind, they continue to twist the victimology and reflect it back into themselves as classic narcissists. Barry is a master, and his attorneys will become his servants. Let’s be clear. Suzanne Morphew is the victim of a mutilation homicide.
Show less

Thanks for posting this @swedeheart, I very much appreciate it. I’m mostly out of the loop with what CE of MK are saying because I don’t have hours to spare anymore to listen to their podcasts.

I agree with most of his sentiments about this kind of murders and defense tactics but I’m not sold on the thought of BM mutilitated SM’s body. I might be in for a big surprise later down the road, though.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

Regarding release of AAs, this law firm's explanation of Kansas law when AAs there were all sealed and after that changed is instructive and goes to my ongoing argument here that leaning in the direction of disclosure has benefits.

"In 2014, the Kansas Legislature enacted a new statute allowing greater public access to the probable cause affidavits that are used to support requests for arrest and search warrants. The new law went into effect July 1, 2014, and brings Kansas in line with most, if not all, of the other state and federal jurisdictions in the country.

Probable cause affidavits are utilized in criminal cases by law enforcement officials to demonstrate to a judge that a legitimate basis exists for the issuance of a warrant. The affidavits contain information explaining what evidence has been collected regarding the case and what the source of that information is. The judge then determines if this information is sufficient to justify the issuance of a warrant for either the arrest of an individual, or the search of a location.

Prior to July 1, 2014, probable cause affidavits were presumptively closed and could only be released with a written order from the court. This placed a heavy burden on the individual seeking disclosure to persuade the court that disclosure was warranted. Those efforts were seldom successful and, as result, the public was generally unaware of the basis for arrests and searches, no matter how important the case was to the public interest."

It concludes, "In 16 of the cases in which Fleeson Gooing has been involved the objection to disclosure was made by the defendant. In virtually all of these cases the defendants have argued that disclosure of the information contained in the probable cause affidavits would taint the jury pool and threaten the defendants’ right to a fair trial. Almost uniformly these arguments have been rejected, with the courts recognizing that the Kansas Supreme Court has never found that pretrial publicity, standing alone, has deprived a defendant of a fair trial. The exception to these rulings was a case in Hodgeman County in which the court found that because of the small size of the available jury pool, there was a greater risk of prejudice if the affidavit were released.

As media organizations continue to pursue their First Amendment right to gather and report news on criminal proceedings of public importance, objections to the disclosure of probable cause affidavits will likely increase as will litigation over whether those objections are valid."

Just something to consider for those strongly opposed to release of BM's AA for the same reasons weighed in Kansas.

EBM to add citation:
"Change in Law Makes Probable Cause Affidavits More Accesible"
Fleeson Gooing Attorneys at Law

 

[SouthAussie]

This attorney says that a Preliminary Hearing in Colorado must be held within 30 days of the initial court appearance.
I guess that the Defense must have waived the 30 days.

And if there is conflicting testimony at the Preliminary Hearing, the judge must accept the Prosecution's version.

This attorney also says that hearsay is admissible at a Preliminary Hearing in Colorado.

The article is written from the Defense Attorney perspective (30 years experience), so it's kinda interesting to read a bit about the tactics that may be employed .. as well as what tactics they should avoid.


The judge sets the preliminary hearing date at the initial appearance or arraignment – this must be set within 30 days unless the time “30” rule is waived by the defendant.
Failure to hold a timely preliminary hearing results in release of the defendant, but not in dismissal of the charges. If the defendant wants more time to prepare, waiving the 30 day rule will make sense.

If testimony conflicts or the magistrate can draw any of several inferences, the magistrate must accept the prosecution’s version.

The Rules of Evidence Apply But Are Loosened – Hearsay Is Admissible
...... however Colorado requires that some non-hearsay evidence be produced.

Understanding The Right to a Colorado Preliminary Hearing

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Some posts and responses to them have been removed.

Personalizing and disrespect toward others members and chastising them in any way is not tolerated at Websleuths. Members are expected to disagree politely and post respectfully or their post will be removed and there may be a temporary or permanent loss of posting privileges.

 

[Scootie98]

Not suggesting that anyone was incompetent. Just saying that they would have had to dig that entire foundation up, and then dig all the soil to do the most thorough job.
The ground penetrating radar has its limitations.
No doubt they did the best they could, without destroying the foundation and significantly delaying the building of the house.

There has been many a search where a missing person's remains have been missed, and then discovered much later - in already-searched territory.

A couple of examples:
Missing woman's body found 28 years later, behind false wall - CNN
Daniel O'Keeffe: Family friend explains missing Geelong man's body was found in 'tight space', after death deemed not suspicious

It seems very strange to suddenly go finish a job after murdering your wife. With a missing wife, not completing the site would have been forgiven (if that was what was required), and daylight hours would seem more appropriate to complete a job. Given noise restrictions.

wouldn't those cadaver dogs be useful after the concrete was dug out?

 

[JosieMae]

Do we know if the public will have access to the preliminary hearing as with the previous two court appearances? Will a media representative be in the courtroom tweeting away?

 

[Scootie98]

I’m not sure the judge, DA or LE will share the AA with anyone they don’t have to in order to prevent leaks. But they have to give Barry a copy. It may be Barry and his lawyer’s decision as to who gets to see the AA. If that’s the case I can’t see him sharing it with anyone else in Susan’s family besides their daughters. Despite what the judge believes they may not even share it with them. Perhaps they’ve said they’re “willing” to, but plan to strongly discourage the girls from reading it.

The above is MOO. Is there a lawyer who can weigh in on family member rights and legal norms when it comes to sharing unpublished evidence and arrest documents?

If the daughters have retained their own attorney, then that lawyer most likely would be able to vett the AA on their behalf. Their interests are multiple....including financial.

 

[Scootie98]

I’ve had the same nagging thoughts about the landscape! Id love if someone could fill us in on all of it! I am surprised we don’t have an active WS member from the immediate area on these posts.

I’m also very curious about the statue placed where the bicycle was found. I’d be surprised if it’s still there, mostly speculation. MOO

That Tyler video puzzles me. It shows Barry walking around by himself in the area of the bicycle discovery. Then, his mom shows up in a pickup truck, gets out of it and goes to the passenger side....if I remember correctly. Why was she there? Did they agree in advance that she would pick him up on the side of the road? Why? That just seemed like an odd exchange to me.

 

[Scootie98]

Good question.[
One thing has been nagging at me with regards to the the AA. The two shady characters who confronted MG and tried to influence her regarding the phone. That interaction surely represents obstruction/tampering/influencing a potential witness/evidence. Their quick entry into the story suggests they are locals. That being said...did the police identify them? If so.....were they questioned about what they did and why? Looks to me like there should be a couple of indictments of persons other than Barry who were acting on his behalf in an active investigation. If that were to happen, would they flip?