ar3593
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2014
- Messages
- 490
- Reaction score
- 6,446
That's going to get those new teeth grinding.
Now that made me laugh!! Bye Bye porcelain veneers
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's going to get those new teeth grinding.
Is it possible that the male interviewed about them was BM? Or would it have to be a different person? I dont understand enough about the legal technicalities to know.
Thanks Tumbleweed.I don't think it's BM as they called the listener a consequential witness.
I'd help you out (with what I believe is meant by this comment, if I may interject) but I don't think that info is allowed here.Right?? I've been watching since the beginning and this is news to me! Please share your info and sources with us! TIA
OK, I'm oblivious to the Pastor. Much appreciate your link for this reference. Thank you.I can't help but wonder if that male was the pastor who left abruptly after a month or so? And wasn't his wife very good friends with a significant female who cleaned houses? Could be wrong about that. But the cryptic prayer and quick exit from town suggests that maybe the pastor...who btw would have been an obvious confidante'......just guessing about these things...but I have been puzzled about the pastor throughout this saga.
I quickly looked up "Spy Pens". They're not very expensive $30-$150. Unless you have a "Spy type Store" near you, it looks like they need to be ordered. I'm guessing someone else ordered it and had it delivered to them. Can you imagine if she had it delivered to the house and BM found it in the mailbox?Yes, it was Suzanne’s pen. It was unclear initially who it belonged to, but it was clarified later on.
So, the defense says that Suzanne recorded herself talking on the phone to someone. She also recorded messages she received from this person onto the spy camera. Then, the FBI interviews someone (a male) and has him listen to the recordings.
One question I have is this - Is the person that the FBI interviewed the same individual that was recorded? Were the FBI helping this guy to recollect the conversations? Or, did they take Suzanne's recording and show them to a different person?
Another question is why would Suzanne make a recording of someone leaving her messages, presumably on her cell phone, when she already had the messages on her cell phone?
And then another question, why was the prosecution not sure that they had enhanced recordings of the spy camera recordings? It seems to me that the recordings would be ultra important. So here we have the defense saying the recording are critical and the prosecution not even sure they have them in discovery. This is sooooo weird.
@Scootie98, I don't think you can link that sermon or anything related as I don't recall any of it on MSM.I can't help but wonder if that male was the pastor who left abruptly after a month or so? And wasn't his wife very good friends with a significant female who cleaned houses? Could be wrong about that. But the cryptic prayer and quick exit from town suggests that maybe the pastor...who btw would have been an obvious confidante'......just guessing about these things...but I have been puzzled about the pastor throughout this saga.
I believe the pastor who was there when the Morphews were there....left in June, 2021, a month after Barry's arrest.....could be wrong......I heard a prayer on video...but, I don't know if it was a Sunday service or a prayer meeting where it was recorded...it was a very interestingly worded prayer, and I hope to find it. .I am looking for it.Can you help fill me in on the pastor that left? I had missed that before.
Thank you....I am likely one of the lowest tech parties on this site....and it frustrates the hell out of me...because I so very much want to be accurate, fair and decent. I just know I heard this sermon...and it struck me as directed at a specific member of the audience....not to...but at...if you get the distinction.@Scootie98, I don't think you can link that sermon. I know what you're talking about.
I believe you missed the part in the hearing where the Judge referenced limitations on EMC -- considered only for advisements and arraignments (i.e., explaining why "NO WebEx" for the preliminary hearing).I did not hear the judge even discuss a trial. He addressed only that the proof positive/presumption great preliminary dates would not be WebX. But then he is just being judicial......no one is even "to" a trial yet.
One thing I have pondered from the very beginning.....did Suzanne at some point consult with an attorney independently of Barry? Regardless of reason...be it divorce, financial protection, whatever...did she have her own separate attorney? I can't think of anything more irritating to Barry than this scenario...if true.I wonder if Suzanne had hired a PI and that's where the idea for the spy pen came fom. Maybe she was reading his phone messages into the pen because Barry had access to her phone and she had to delete the text messages? (edited typo)
What follows is pure conjecture on my part...
I am thinking Barry came home from the job site to "make the wife happy" and walked in on Suzanne telling her friend back East about the fact that she had recorded conversations which proved Barry was ____whatever he was involved in____. Additionally - Perhaps divulging to her the location of the spy pens "if anything should happen to me" prior to Barry walking in on the conversation. Their conversation coming to a sudden end as Barry flies into a rage over her "betrayal"... Exacerbated by Suzanne's refusal to tell him where she stashed the recordings.
Suzanne taking a defiant stand in her final moments. I think she wanted her daughters to hear Barry incriminating himself because she needed them to know the truth knowing the sway Barry held over them.
The PP home appears to be the crime scene.I missed the hearing, is there a single post which recaps the high points? TIA~
Prosecution has 4 witnesses ready to testify @ Prelim regarding the crime scene at the residence.
What was BM up to that SM was recording. I don’t buy she was recording their arguments or physical abuse. I’m going out on a shaky limb and say money laundering or white collar crimes. She was going to nail BM for something illegal, but he killed her first. DA knows what that “something” is. All moo
Judge : Ms. Eytan, are you not able to make out what’s being said in those spy pen recording?
IE : Ohh you can’t at all.. it’s very hard to hear.it’s very weak .. especially uh., this is honestly uh., the one spy pen recording that uh Suzanne recorded was between her and another individual taking on the telephone and her also listening to messages from this individual that are extremely critical to the case and it’s acknowledged by FBI Agent Grusing that they are hard to hear and that they actually had to go back and get them them enhanced. So all that’s in Discovery so uh we know that but the Prosecution doesn’t know that .. which is a problem.. right now but you can hear that they played that enhanced version. Or otherwise the individual that they played them for would have never been able to hear …. ( couldn’t understand the rest).
totally unqualified question about the spy pen tech....We know that cell signal strength is subject to the terrain in Colorado, altitude, mountains, etc....does the spy pen have the same vulnerabilities?So, the defense says that Suzanne recorded herself talking on the phone to someone. She also recorded messages she received from this person onto the spy camera. Then, the FBI interviews someone (a male) and has him listen to the recordings.
One question I have is this - Is the person that the FBI interviewed the same individual that was recorded? Were the FBI helping this guy to recollect the conversations? Or, did they take Suzanne's recording and show them to a different person?
Another question is why would Suzanne make a recording of someone leaving her messages, presumably on her cell phone, when she already had the messages on her cell phone?
And then another question, why was the prosecution not sure that they had enhanced recordings of the spy camera recordings? It seems to me that the recordings would be ultra important. So here we have the defense saying the recording are critical and the prosecution not even sure they have them in discovery. This is sooooo weird.
Prosecution has 4 witnesses ready to testify @ Prelim regarding the crime scene at the residence.
What was BM up to that SM was recording. I don’t buy she was recording their arguments or physical abuse. I’m going out on a shaky limb and say money laundering or white collar crimes. She was going to nail BM for something illegal, but he killed her first. DA knows what that “something” is. All moo