Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 #80 *arrest*

[10ofRods]

I don't get this - I thought Barry and Suzanne had only moved to Colorado 18 months previously? I wouldn't have thought that made Barry the expert on all things Colorado.

He had been going there since 2016, when he took MM1 on a college trip. I think he made inquiries in Salida at that time and, probably, hunted and fished. But yeah, I think his expertise on all of CO is exaggerated - he probably knew the Monarch Pass area pretty well, though.

It's been a long time since we discussed their choice of house. Most larger homes in the region do not have so much glass (tall glass windows) as it gets really really cold in the winter and it's expensive to heat the house (clearly not on Barry's list of issues). He also has a terrible sense of what the local residential landscaping aesthetic is - but he does use his property (apparently) as a place to store boulders (more or less randomly and very unnaturally placed). He doesn't know when elk go in herds or when deer antlers are shed.

And while I'm on the subject, let's not forget he claims to have gotten the still meaty elk antlers by chopping them off the head of road kill, while I believe he likely killed an entire elk and took the antlers to attract mountain lions to the house (and he was apparently successful in that part). He may have used the rest of the elk in some manner as well. But it wasn't elk season.

He apparently didn't know CO gun laws either. So...while he is an outdoorsman, he's not Superman.

 

[Seattle1]

And yet, LE says the Bobcat was not used in the commission of this crime. It likely has GPS as well. I don't know why they would be so definitive about the Bobcat unless they had the evidence to say that. It's true he could have used it way earlier and somehow reset the GPS.

Unless I missed it somewhere, there was no definitive answer that this Bobcat was GPS equipped, that it was working and did not show evidence of tampering.

The defense cited the page and paragraph of the AA when talking about the bobcat being ruled out in the disappearance of SM. I really don't recall the word murder used in the sentence here but I do think there's something suspicious about the bobcat being ruled out, end of story.

Perhaps by oversight LE performed an illegal search involving the bobcat/GPS - it happens. Whatever the reason, I find the exclusion very odd.

MOO

 

[crhedBngr]

Since I read that, I too keep thinking about this. Why would someone need to write down to feed the cat? I suppose even if it’s usually not your chore to feed the cat you would remember to feed it when you see her walk around the house? Unless the place of the feeding changed and suddenly became important, to make her feel more at home in the room, to teach her that there is her home base.
One other option is that SM still could have had “chemo brain” and was prone to forgetting things even if those things would seem basic and logical to us. The girls should know if that was the case.
Or SM never wrote that list. I hope LE could compare the handwriting to other written text of her.

Suzanne may have had chemo brain and was therefore making lists.

My concern is that Barry obviously has no respect for any living thing. He'll care for something (wife, children, pets) as long as there is no inconvenience to him. Thinking of his pet raccoon as I type this.

I suspect Barry was complaining Lulu was underfoot, and therefore confined to the bedroom.

JMVHO.

 

[10ofRods]

Since I read that, I too keep thinking about this. Why would someone need to write down to feed the cat? I suppose even if it’s usually not your chore to feed the cat you would remember to feed it when you see her walk around the house? Unless the place of the feeding changed and suddenly became important, to make her feel more at home in the room, to teach her that there is her home base.
One other option is that SM still could have had “chemo brain” and was prone to forgetting things even if those things would seem basic and logical to us. The girls should know if that was the case.
Or SM never wrote that list. I hope LE could compare the handwriting to other written text of her.

To me, it sounds like Lulu is confined to MM2's bedroom. If Lulu has grown accustomed to that, she would probably make very little noise (master bedroom on first floor, Lulu on second floor). I assume that this is because had Lulu ever escaped the house, she would be coyote food or mountain lion bait. If people go in and out of a house a lot, it's really hard to keep a kitty inside all the time. So Lulu was in solitary confinement while MM2 was gone (and while MM2 was staying in Salida?)

 

[Lilypad13]

And yet, LE says the Bobcat was not used in the commission of this crime. It likely has GPS as well. I don't know why they would be so definitive about the Bobcat unless they had the evidence to say that. It's true he could have used it way earlier and somehow reset the GPS.

I had forgotten about that! Does “commission” of the crime encompass everything from start to finish including covering up the crime or just the actual crime or murder itself?

 

[crhedBngr]

To me, it sounds like Lulu is confined to MM2's bedroom. If Lulu has grown accustomed to that, she would probably make very little noise (master bedroom on first floor, Lulu on second floor). I assume that this is because had Lulu ever escaped the house, she would be coyote food or mountain lion bait. If people go in and out of a house a lot, it's really hard to keep a kitty inside all the time. So Lulu was in solitary confinement while MM2 was gone (and while MM2 was staying in Salida?)

RBBM

Hopefully, yes.

 

[10ofRods]

I had forgotten about that! Does “commission” of the crime encompass everything from start to finish including covering up the crime or just the actual crime or murder itself?

In this case, he is charged with covering up the crime. I am guessing it's almost always a separate charge - but Seattle would know better than me. In California, cover-up is definitely covered at trial, even if there's no separate charge.

 

[10ofRods]

I wonder how much true crime BM listened to or read about. I listen to some mysterious cases, but other cases, for some reason, don't grab my interest. One case that I watched and read about was the "Mike Williams Case". I guess this case was a big mystery for many years. It was later determined that his wife's lover buried him six feet in the muck at a boat landing, Over time the lake had expanded covering his burial spot underneath. He would have never been found unless there was a confession. Seventeen years later, there was a confession, and authorities had to build a dam and pump the water from the area he was buried at.

I wonder if BM knew of this crime as it went to trial in late 2018. It was in the news, and there is a book out.

I bring this up because I feel that BM spent that time down at the river for nefarious reasons. Was he thinking of how he could bury Suzanne under the river? I don't know what the river looks like. How wide is it? Are there a lot of rocks where one can re route the water (making a dam) to later dig under? Once buried, the rocks can be removed so the water can go over the burial site. I know my thoughts are way out there, but I just don't think he took her anywhere in either vehicle. SM being close by makes the most sense to me.

On a side note, it just seems when BM is up to no good, he uses some crazy animal story to make his actions seem innocent. He used that ridiculous "turkey" story to make something sinister appear innocent. Also, he didn't want anyone close to his property during AM searches. You would think his house and property would be the headquarters for any searches. What was BM doing? Walking around with a gun? Kind of makes me suspicious. JMO

That river has several flow monitors in the section from its source down to the dam - so building a dam would have been noticed. Further, putting the rocks back in a natural way doesn't seem to be Barry's forté. The river flows higher and lower than what it was in May 2020, so he would have risked exposure of the skeleton, for sure. Lakeside would work better for this. And there is that Franz Lake connection.

I think Suzanne was alive when she left the property...

 

[Lilypad13]

Suzanne may have had chemo brain and was therefore making lists.

My concern is that Barry obviously has no respect for any living thing. He'll care for something (wife, children, pets) as long as there is no inconvenience to him. Thinking of his pet raccoon as I type this.

I suspect Barry was complaining Lulu was underfoot, and therefore confined to the bedroom.

JMVHO.

I know right? That poor pet raccoon! I always thought what a nice property that would have been to have a dog(s). Something tells me Barry was not into pets. But Suzanne might have loved a furry companion being alone in that big secluded house. Another poster suggested Lulu might be M’s cat and that Suzanne might have been keeping her while they were away on their camping trip and Lulu may have been confined to the room so she wouldn’t get out. Can you imagine trying to find a lost cat on that property?

 

[Lilypad13]

From @NoSI

Skid Steer aka Bobcat: Based on GPS data “does not appear to be connected to SMs disappearance.” AA Page 41. Bobcat active at job sites on 5/9/20 in the morning (until around 11 AM).

So the Bobcat DID have gps. And it WAS used at the river job site on 5/9 until 11 am. Thanks for clearing that up @NoSI. I wonder exactly what time Barry sent MG home. Could it have been a little earlier than 11 am giving BM time to use Bobcat without anyone observing what he was doing? I know LE “cleared” the Bobcat (as well as the mountain lion ) but I can’t seem to let go of the Bobcat being used for nefarious purpose or why Barry had to take it to DSI on May 9th only about an hour before Suzanne’s last communication.

 

[Seattle1]

The defense cited the page and paragraph of the AA when talking about the bobcat being ruled out in the disappearance of SM. I really don't recall the word murder used in the sentence here but I do think there's something suspicious about the bobcat being ruled out, end of story.

Perhaps by oversight LE performed an illegal search involving the bobcat/GPS - it happens. Whatever the reason, I find the exclusion very odd.

MOO

From @NoSI

Skid Steer aka Bobcat: Based on GPS data “does not appear to be connected to SMs disappearance.” AA Page 41. Bobcat active at job sites on 5/9/20 in the morning (until around 11 AM).

^^bbm Jinx @MassGuy

 

[CGray123]

I found one Indiana attorney/professor's rules for trial advocacy - I thought you might be interested in a practitioner's view of what works. I hasten to add, that I am sure the author would advise any attorney to be flexible and adaptive. It would be a mistake to believe these are rigid rules to be applied in all circumstances.

THE 20 BASIC PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE TRIAL ADVOCACY

1. Be brief. Long-winded lawyers are boring.

2. Be positive. Emphasize the strengths of your case, rather than the weaknesses of your opponent's. Take a firm stand and stick to it -- don’t waffle. No whining.

3. Be clear about what you want. If you want the jury to give your client $2 million dollars, you have to ask them for it. If you want them to ignore the alibi testimony given by the defendant’s brother, you have to be clear. You can’t just say, “Well, he’s his brother ........”

4. Keep it simple. Concentrate on the five or ten most important facts in your case. If you can simplify your case, edit your presentations, and keep the jury focused on your main points, resisting the temptation to go off on less important tangents, you will present the jury with a case they can understand and remember. Use simple language rather than legalese.

5. Provide details. This is not inconsistent with simplicity. Simplicity means concentrating on the main issues and ignoring the rest. Being precise and detailed means going beyond the testimony that the defendant was drunk, and eliciting from your witness a full description of the defendant as belligerent, shouting, falling down, spilling his beer, having blood-shot eyes, reeking of alcohol, stumbling, dropping his car keys four time, and singing off-key Irish songs.

6. Provide motives. Don’t just say that someone did something, say why. This is another kind of detail. It means that when a witness says she is pretty sure an accident happened at 2:55 pm, ask how she knows. Elicit that she had just checked her watch because she was caught in traffic and had to be at the school at 3:00 to pick up her daughter.

7. Use the rule of threes. If it’s important, do it three times. The baby didn’t just die, he suffocated, turned blue, and died. And it wasn’t just a preventable tragedy, it was inexcuseable, a preventabale tragedy that wouldn’t have happened if simple precautions had been taken. It’s not just the breathalyzer that proves the defendant was drunk, the arresting officer and eyewitnesses corroborate it.

8. Start strong. Psychologists have confirmed what our mothers always told us: first impressions are important. Therefore, the first thirty seconds of each phase of your trial -- your opening statement, each direct and cross-examination, and your closing argument -- are critical times when you should focus on something you especially want the jury to remember.

9. End strong. The last thing jurors hear is also important. Have a big finish. The final thirty seconds of each phase of your trial -- opening statement, each direct and cross-examination, and your closing argument -- are also critical times in which you should focus on something you especially want the jury to remember.

10. Admit your weaknesses. Every case has weaknesses, e.g., witnesses with unsavory backgrounds or evidence that defies common sense. You cannot ignore these problems; weaknesses do not just go away. You cannot explain them away, but you can disclose them yourself in a way that makes them appear trivial. Psychologists have shown that you will usually be more persuasive if you bring out both sides of an issue yourself than if you adopt the "used-car-salesman" approach of trying to hide obvious points of vulnerability. But don’t dwell on them.

11. Use themes. Find themes that relates to the elements of your case or the characteristics of your client that arouse natural sympathy or coincide with universally admired principles. It is especially helpful if you can come up with a clever title for your theme. E.g.:

a. David and Goliath -- if you represent an individual against a large corporation.

b. Fighting city hall -- if you represent a person who has been the victim of inflexible policies of government bureaucracies or the unreasonable decisions of faceless officials. c. Caught in a sea of red tape -- if you represent a small business trying to comply with contradictory and arbitrary regulations and laws.

d. Law and order -- if your case is weak on sympathetic factors, but your client's actions were legally justified.

12. Use chronological order. It’s going to be hard enough for the jury to follow your case without you jumping around from witness to witness, back and forth in time.

13. Use illustrations. Long recitations of facts and information are boring and hard to keep straight, so use both visual aids and literary allusions. Jurors may have trouble envisioning what the crime scene looked like if your detective just describes it, but they’ll remember the crime scene photos (especially if the corpse is still lying there). They may not remember all the details of your argument that an opposing expert witness's opinions are purely subjective, but they’ll remember the story of Goldilocks and the three bears. Anything that you can reduce to a drawing, chart, or computer simulation should be presented that way.

14. Use language carefully. Use words that personalize your witnesses and depersonalize your opponent's, e.g., you represent Jackie Reynolds, organist at the First Methodist Church, being sued by some doctor who got a dent in his Mercedes. Think whether what happened was an accident, a wreck, a rear-end collision, or a melee. Note that what is important here is the choice of noun, not adjective. A “horrible, tragic accident” is still just an accident.

15. Be professional. Wear a dark suit. Be formal rather than informal. Have good posture. Be respectful of others in the courtroom at all times, especially the judge and jurors. Stand when the judge or jury enters or leaves the room. Address the judge as "your honor" and all jurors and witnesses by their last names.

16. Have a personality. This is not inconsistent with professionalism. You can be professional and courteous of others without becoming a boring, wooden stick or a trial robot. Tell a story, recite a poem, wear a rose in your lapel, and laugh when something funny happens. Be human.

17. Use as few notes as possible. This is not the same thing as using no notes at all.

18. Watch your voice. Your voice is important -- try to be a good actor. Speak clearly. Vary your pace, pitch and loudness. Keep up the pace of your speech, without letting it get so fast the jury cannot follow you. Slow, dull, monotonous speech is boring.

19. Always remember that the case is about facts, not law. The jury doesn’t care about the legal technicalities, and neither should you. A trial is about who did what to whom, why did they do it, what happened, and why it is unjust.

20. Always take the high road. Don’t take cheap shots. Don’t appeal to racial or ethnic prejudice. Avoid sarcasm. Don’t attack the personal credibility of your opponent. Try not to be rude, abrasive, or obnoxious.

21. And never, ever, use a lectern. This isn’t an appellate argument.

© 2006. James A. Tanford. May be freely reprinted, quoted, criticized and used as long as properly attributed.

 

[MaisieBella]

That river has several flow monitors in the section from its source down to the dam - so building a dam would have been noticed. Further, putting the rocks back in a natural way doesn't seem to be Barry's forté. The river flows higher and lower than what it was in May 2020, so he would have risked exposure of the skeleton, for sure. Lakeside would work better for this. And there is that Franz Lake connection.

I think Suzanne was alive when she left the property...

I also think she was alive when he moved her.

 

[CGray123]

I found one Indiana attorney/professor's rules for trial advocacy - I thought you might be interested in a practitioner's view of what works. I hasten to add, that I am sure the author would advise any attorney to be flexible and adaptive. It would be a mistake to believe these are rigid rules to be applied in all circumstances.

THE 20 BASIC PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE TRIAL ADVOCACY

1. Be brief. Long-winded lawyers are boring.

2. Be positive. Emphasize the strengths of your case, rather than the weaknesses of your opponent's. Take a firm stand and stick to it -- don’t waffle. No whining.

3. Be clear about what you want. If you want the jury to give your client $2 million dollars, you have to ask them for it. If you want them to ignore the alibi testimony given by the defendant’s brother, you have to be clear. You can’t just say, “Well, he’s his brother ........”

4. Keep it simple. Concentrate on the five or ten most important facts in your case. If you can simplify your case, edit your presentations, and keep the jury focused on your main points, resisting the temptation to go off on less important tangents, you will present the jury with a case they can understand and remember. Use simple language rather than legalese.

5. Provide details. This is not inconsistent with simplicity. Simplicity means concentrating on the main issues and ignoring the rest. Being precise and detailed means going beyond the testimony that the defendant was drunk, and eliciting from your witness a full description of the defendant as belligerent, shouting, falling down, spilling his beer, having blood-shot eyes, reeking of alcohol, stumbling, dropping his car keys four time, and singing off-key Irish songs.

6. Provide motives. Don’t just say that someone did something, say why. This is another kind of detail. It means that when a witness says she is pretty sure an accident happened at 2:55 pm, ask how she knows. Elicit that she had just checked her watch because she was caught in traffic and had to be at the school at 3:00 to pick up her daughter.

7. Use the rule of threes. If it’s important, do it three times. The baby didn’t just die, he suffocated, turned blue, and died. And it wasn’t just a preventable tragedy, it was inexcuseable, a preventabale tragedy that wouldn’t have happened if simple precautions had been taken. It’s not just the breathalyzer that proves the defendant was drunk, the arresting officer and eyewitnesses corroborate it.

8. Start strong. Psychologists have confirmed what our mothers always told us: first impressions are important. Therefore, the first thirty seconds of each phase of your trial -- your opening statement, each direct and cross-examination, and your closing argument -- are critical times when you should focus on something you especially want the jury to remember.

9. End strong. The last thing jurors hear is also important. Have a big finish. The final thirty seconds of each phase of your trial -- opening statement, each direct and cross-examination, and your closing argument -- are also critical times in which you should focus on something you especially want the jury to remember.

10. Admit your weaknesses. Every case has weaknesses, e.g., witnesses with unsavory backgrounds or evidence that defies common sense. You cannot ignore these problems; weaknesses do not just go away. You cannot explain them away, but you can disclose them yourself in a way that makes them appear trivial. Psychologists have shown that you will usually be more persuasive if you bring out both sides of an issue yourself than if you adopt the "used-car-salesman" approach of trying to hide obvious points of vulnerability. But don’t dwell on them.

11. Use themes. Find themes that relates to the elements of your case or the characteristics of your client that arouse natural sympathy or coincide with universally admired principles. It is especially helpful if you can come up with a clever title for your theme. E.g.:

a. David and Goliath -- if you represent an individual against a large corporation.

b. Fighting city hall -- if you represent a person who has been the victim of inflexible policies of government bureaucracies or the unreasonable decisions of faceless officials. c. Caught in a sea of red tape -- if you represent a small business trying to comply with contradictory and arbitrary regulations and laws.

d. Law and order -- if your case is weak on sympathetic factors, but your client's actions were legally justified.

12. Use chronological order. It’s going to be hard enough for the jury to follow your case without you jumping around from witness to witness, back and forth in time.

13. Use illustrations. Long recitations of facts and information are boring and hard to keep straight, so use both visual aids and literary allusions. Jurors may have trouble envisioning what the crime scene looked like if your detective just describes it, but they’ll remember the crime scene photos (especially if the corpse is still lying there). They may not remember all the details of your argument that an opposing expert witness's opinions are purely subjective, but they’ll remember the story of Goldilocks and the three bears. Anything that you can reduce to a drawing, chart, or computer simulation should be presented that way.

14. Use language carefully. Use words that personalize your witnesses and depersonalize your opponent's, e.g., you represent Jackie Reynolds, organist at the First Methodist Church, being sued by some doctor who got a dent in his Mercedes. Think whether what happened was an accident, a wreck, a rear-end collision, or a melee. Note that what is important here is the choice of noun, not adjective. A “horrible, tragic accident” is still just an accident.

15. Be professional. Wear a dark suit. Be formal rather than informal. Have good posture. Be respectful of others in the courtroom at all times, especially the judge and jurors. Stand when the judge or jury enters or leaves the room. Address the judge as "your honor" and all jurors and witnesses by their last names.

16. Have a personality. This is not inconsistent with professionalism. You can be professional and courteous of others without becoming a boring, wooden stick or a trial robot. Tell a story, recite a poem, wear a rose in your lapel, and laugh when something funny happens. Be human.

17. Use as few notes as possible. This is not the same thing as using no notes at all.

18. Watch your voice. Your voice is important -- try to be a good actor. Speak clearly. Vary your pace, pitch and loudness. Keep up the pace of your speech, without letting it get so fast the jury cannot follow you. Slow, dull, monotonous speech is boring.

19. Always remember that the case is about facts, not law. The jury doesn’t care about the legal technicalities, and neither should you. A trial is about who did what to whom, why did they do it, what happened, and why it is unjust.

20. Always take the high road. Don’t take cheap shots. Don’t appeal to racial or ethnic prejudice. Avoid sarcasm. Don’t attack the personal credibility of your opponent. Try not to be rude, abrasive, or obnoxious.

21. And never, ever, use a lectern. This isn’t an appellate argument.

© 2006. James A. Tanford. May be freely reprinted, quoted, criticized and used as long as properly attributed.

For an example of how a superb advocate violated Tanford's first rule out of necessity and how he handled it, I refer you again to prosecutor Mackey in U.S. v McVeigh:

"THE COURT: Well, members of the jury, would you rather go to lunch now, or stay on with this? I'm not going to particularly put it to a vote, but I vote that we continue.

MR. MACKEY: Well, thank you for your patience, because I know it is hard to listen to people for a long time.

When I got trained about public speaking in high school, there were three rules: One is you stand up tall so people can see you; one is you speak loudly, clearly so people can hear you; and the second -- or third thing is you keep it short so people like you. I recognize that this case may have violated those three rules of public speaking, but I appreciate your patience."

 

[Seattle1]

a. David and Goliath -- if you represent an individual against a large corporation.

b. Fighting city hall -- if you represent a person who has been the victim of inflexible policies of government bureaucracies or the unreasonable decisions of faceless officials. c. Caught in a sea of red tape -- if you represent a small business trying to comply with contradictory and arbitrary regulations and laws.

^^rsbm

Beginning with item 1, I thought the tone was directed towards civil litigators / wrongful death-type trial attorneys and sure enough... Good reference, nonetheless. Thank you.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

That's just crazy, really. 3X a day for people in that age group is way off the charts. I'd say that if Suzanne did indeed sext JL, it must not have been all that stimulating for her.

BM strikes me as the sort of guy to take something that happened once (even if 25 years ago) and talk like it's a regular thing. MOO

So the Bobcat DID have gps. And it WAS used at the river job site on 5/9 until 11 am. Thanks for clearing that up @NoSI. I wonder exactly what time Barry sent MG home. Could it have been a little earlier than 11 am giving BM time to use Bobcat without anyone observing what he was doing? I know LE “cleared” the Bobcat (as well as the mountain lion ) but I can’t seem to let go of the Bobcat being used for nefarious purpose or why Barry had to take it to DSI on May 9th only about an hour before Suzanne’s last communication.

I seem to recall, from way back in this case, that BM had given MG a ride to the jobsite that Saturday, and therefore when he decided to leave early, she had to leave early as well. Anyone else recall this? MOO

 

[Seattle1]

BM strikes me as the sort of guy to take something that happened once (even if 25 years ago) and talk like it's a regular thing. MOO

I seem to recall, from way back in this case, that BM had given MG a ride to the jobsite that Saturday, and therefore when he decided to leave early, she had to leave early as well. Anyone else recall this? MOO

I agree! In the podcast with reporter Carol M. - I believe BM was referencing sex and the Florida trip where BM allegedly surprised SM by showing up unannounced.

I also recall MG saying that BM was supposed to collect her early on Saturday for the riverfront job but showed up late -- citing the grassland fire near PP?? MOO

 

[NoSI]

OK, remainder of morning of Day 3. The dates are all over the place, but I typed up as presented in court. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

This is my interpretation of what I heard. This information has been
provided for use and discussion at Websleuths only.​

Day 3

Afternoon Continued

Agent Grusing recalled by Prosecution at 2:48 PM.

Prosecution had Agent Grusing confirm that he has done some extensive work in the field of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).

“Chipmunk gun” – PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 96 & 97: Photo showing gun and scope. Gun handed to Grusing in March 2021. Barrel of gun is 7 ½ inches. Gun is 16 inches long.

“Role of auditor” – Is strategic and slow. Going through evidence. This was Grusing’s role.

“BMs goal” - “To be cleared”.

May 9, 2020 – As per BM, SM and BM had sex. It was reportedly “great”, because “there were no chemicals in Suzanne”. They had a “great night:. They put their phones away. BM told Grusing “I just wish you knew how amazing she (SM) was”. BM also voiced concern about SMs “drug and alcohol abuse” and that she kept friends and other things hidden from him. Stated “I, Barry, was the ATM”.

“tranquilizer darts” – BM confirmed that he never used tranquilizer/tranquilizer darts in Colorado. Only used them in Indiana on his deer farm.

June 2, 2020 interview – Grusing’s initial meeting with BM. FBI would take over where CBI left off. The initial meeting took place in the “Cushman’s (spelling?) backyard” (neighbor’s backyard). BM informed Grusing that SM most recently did well in the Summer when they moved to Salida, which was Summer of 2018. Grusing asked BM when he last saw SM/what his last image of SM is in his head and BM didn’t answer this question x3.

May 9, 2020 – As per interview with BM, SM and BM ate “veggie soup out in the sun”. SM was “perfectly fine” and “had no alcohol in her”. They reportedly hiked to Fooses that night – this would have been about 6-7 hours after SM sent her last message, which was SMs last confirmed online activity.

May 10, 2020 – BM reportedly woke up at 4:15 AM-ish. Said at that time SM was naked. BM now worried that “CBD Tim” is involved in SMs disappearance. BM voiced that “Suzanne bought drugs off of him” so he is a possible suspect.

July 8, 2020 interview – Recovered deleted texts including text that “Suzanne is in one of her moods”. BM only remembered that he threw away trash in the McDonald parking lot, not at the other trash run locations. He stated that he was at the Broomfield worksite when Jean Ritter called (which is incorrect). Regarding SM’s “I am done” text, BM stated “She never said that. She loves her family too much”.

May 5, 2020 – SM “delivered” girls to spring break (road trip). As per BM, “Suzanne’s behavior got worse. She was drinking the whole time” after that.

May 6, 2020 – BMs “suicide text”. BM explained that “I was just trying to hurt her. That was all I was doing”. After BM was told about the affair, he stated “Now it makes more sense in God’s eyes” and “Maybe, in God’s eyes, his way of resolving something”.

May 10, 2020 – 3:25 AM telematics became active. 4:30 AM BMs phone became active.

PEOPLES EXHIBIT 59: SMs selfie. LAST PROOF OF LIFE. BM stated when he saw the selfie “she is obviously drunk”.

3:27 PM - BM now wearing reading glasses. Looking at a photo with IE. Likely SMs selfie.

Break. Court will resume at 3:35 PM.

Mr. Lindsey interviews Agent Grusing.

“airplane mode” – 2:37 PM on May 9, 2020, 2:34 PM on May 9, 2020 BM arrived at Puma Path, 10:17 PM phone out of airplane mode, 10:17 PM – 3:25 AM: Phone at Puma Path, not in airplane mode, no texts.

May 10, 2020 at 3:25 AM: BM supposedly took left turn on US50 to follow a bull elk.

March 5, 2021 interview – DSI parking lot. May 9th & 10th, 2020 regarding airplane mode, BM was asked what he knows about airplane mode. Showed Grusing “Just scroll up to settings, it’s the first thing you see, if in airplane mode it would have been an accident”. He didn’t recall that he put the phone in airplane mode. BM asked Grusing “WHAT ABOUT IMMUNITY? CAN YOU GIVE ME IMMUNITY IF I OPEN MY LIFE UP TO YOU?” BM also shared that SM changed. Stated “She turned into a different person; physically fit, ballsy”.

“chipmunk gun/tranquilizer dart” – When last fired? BM shared that he shot/shot at 2 deer at Puma Path in late April 2020. BM said “Looking back, there are some things that make me look bad”.

“divorce” – BM said “I am not discussing it. It’s never gonna happen”.

April 5, 2021 interview – Grusing showed BM photos. Asked BM if he has ever been violent with SM. There was item on SMs grievance list “Just wrestled free”. BM answered that he never “Grabbed” or “constricted” SM. Admitted to “clipping her nose” accidently. When shown pictures of SM, BM stated that SM appeared “intoxicated on every picture so far”. As per Grusing, it didn’t appear this way and she was smiling in all of them.

“mini camera” – Box was found, but camera was never located. BM reportedly doesn’t know what happened to it.

“scope” – BM thought that his scope was mounted on his gun. However, it was located in the safe. BM then stated “maybe not mounted”.

“sawed off gun” – I wrote “didn’t match gun”, but now not sure what that means. L BM informed that he only used the gun in the garage/breeze way and not in the actual residence.

“last person to see SM alive” – WAS BM! Historically, consistent conversations (JL etc.) stopped Saturday, May 9, 2020. “SOMETHING HAPPENED TO SM, HER PHONE, OR BOTH, SINCE NOT TALKING TO JL ANYMORE” BM agreed with this statement. It was discussed that SM & JL were always cognizant and didn’t talk with spouses/kids were around.

May 6, 2020 at 10:13 AM – Regarding “I am done” text, BM stated “She never sat me down and said that to me ever”. Comments were made via text, but never in person. BM stated if she wanted to get divorced, he would have “written check, gave her half, go own way”.

“BMs last image of SM” – Around 5 am in bed on May 10, 2020, “just a lump”, SM reportedly “snored lightly” when BM left.

“Lisa Wolf” – With Colorado Parks & Wildlife. She has been a Veterinarian for 35 years. She was asked how much “BAM” tranquilizer would be needed for a female that weighs 120 lbs. She was familiar with BAM. She shared that the dart is designed to penetrate animal hide. In a human, the dart would lead to a significant hematoma. The person would be expected to be fully sedated in 8-12 minutes. Complete sedation would last approximately 8 hours. The person would likely “run” for 2-3 minutes, acting intoxicated, wobbly, unstable. Breathing: may become difficult, leading to brain hypoxia, a possible sign/symptom would be snoring.

“snoring” – BM stated “numerous times” that SM was snoring when he last saw her.

“burned items in fireplace” – BM shared that SM was “cleaning out file cabinets” leading to the remnants of file folders being present in the fireplace.

“I don’t recall” – BM answered with “I don’t recall” a lot. All in all, 95x “I don’t recall”. BM would say that whenever he heard James Comey or Hillary Clinton say “I don’t recall”, it would be a lie and “they did not want to tell the truth”.

May 9, 2020 – BM texts SM at 2:31 PM “Did you leave?” BM reported that he did not shoot the tranquilizer gun on May 9, 2020. “BAM”, telazol, or xylazine are some tranquilizer options. BM thought that the tranquilizer was on his workbench, but it wasn’t (maybe was part of trash run?).

“voting for SM” – BM stated “Yeah, because I wanted Trump to win. The other guys are cheating. She would have voted for Trump anyway”.

“meaning of BMs life post SM disappearance” - “Life only consists of hunting now”.

“last text from SM to JL” - May 9, 2020 at 2:13 PM. NO OUTGOING MESSAGES AFTER THAT.

May 10, 2020 - BM in Broomfield. BM was told “THERE IS NO WAY THAT SM WOULD NOT USE HER PHONE IF SHE WAS CONSIOUS”. BM bowed head in response to this and said “Yeah”.

“BMs truthfulness” – BM was asked by LE “are you truthful?”. BM responded “It’s in God’s hand. He allowed this whole thing to happen”. BM reportedly thought that he would be cleared within 2 months.

May 5, 2021 – After BM was apprehended, Grusing interviewed BM again. BM asked Grusing “How could you do this to me? I trusted you!”. Grusing informed BM that the evidence was presented to the DA and an arrest warrant was issued for murder.

“one steak” – Based on April 22, 2021 interview, SM and BM ate steaks on the evening of May 9, 2020, but only 1 plate was found in the dishwasher. BM explained that they only grilled one steak as SM said she couldn’t eat a whole steak. BM stated that they grilled 1 steak and ate off 1 plate.

March 5, 2021 interview – Conducted at the Tailwinds jobsite. BM stated “When Suzanne married me, it was marriage for life. I am a godly man”.

“infidelity” – As per interview with BM dated May 12, 2020, “there is none. 100% none. I have been 100% faithful in entire marriage”. When asked about if SM may have been unfaithful, stated “not at all”. March 21, 2020 interview – “She has never been with another man”. June 2, 2020 – LE introduced BM to the idea that SM had an affair. They asked BM “how do you know there has been no unfaithfulness”. BM answered “because of her relationship with God”. June 3, 2020 – BM interviewed by CBI. He stated that it was hard for him to be asked affair-related questions. Stated “He (one of the LE agents) put that in my head (the possibility of an affair). I work 12 hours per day. She is alone”. July 1, 2020 – BM asked LE if any information about a possible affair can be shared with him. July 8, 2020 – A 6-hour interview took place. LE was more “confrontational” with BM. LE at Puma Path with BM. BM said prayer for CBI Agents at a meal that they shared. CBI probed if BM knew that SM had an affair. BM stated “I just don’t think that she would do that. But you guys planted doubt”. BM also stated “She is the love of my life. I would lay down my life for that girl”.

“changing stories” - BM was reportedly in “shock” for 5 days after SM went missing and due to this his stories changed, including the time with the bobcat blade was changed, when he went biking with SM at Fooses, argument with SM Wednesday vs. Friday, and day of going to Salida Stove & Spa Wednesday vs. Friday evening.

May 9, 2020 - As per BM, they had sex after dinner. BM then remembers “me (BM) rolling over and going to sleep”. SM likely stayed up longer because she has more trouble with sleep.

January 27, 2021 interview – Grusing and Harris told BM about affair. So far, 20 interviews had been conducted, but none since July 8, 2020. BM reportedly had “no idea” of the affair and stated that “he never would have suspected it”. He shared that they (BM and SM) had an “unbelievable” time in Florida in February 2020 including having sex 3x per day and SM being romantic with BM.

May 6, 2020 – Suicide text from BM to SM included verbiage “Meeting my savior. Life mere grain of sand in comparison to eternity”. He reportedly sent this text in order to hurt SM. He expected SM to reply, but she didn’t.

“bringing girls into the fights” – BM brought girls into the fights by telling them “Mom thinks I have an affair, but it’s not true”. He regretted doing this and said “it’s the worst thing I ever did”. SM was reportedly very mad.

January 28, 2021 – At DSI. Phone call between CBI and BM. BM stated “What you told me yesterday (SMs affair) blew my mind”. BM reportedly presented as “troubled” by the suggestion that SM is dead.

“phone pass code” – SM reportedly had the passcode for BMs phone.

“missing money from safe” – BM claimed that “lots of money is missing from safe” (70k).

“SMs affair” – BM wanted to know who SMs affair partner was and how long the affair had been going on. When CBI told him that the affair had been going on for 2 years, BM “shocked” and stated “this blows my mind that she pulled this off”.

As per Judge, Prosecution had 3 hours 25 minutes today and Defense 2 hours 55 minutes. Overall, Defense is still ahead in how much time they used.

Court excused for the day.

 

[DeDee]

My theory on the cap is that he took the cap off, put it in his pocket, jammed the dart into SM by hand, was so occupied in killing SM and disposing of the body that he forgot the cap was in his pocket. He disposed of the dart later at one of the dump sites or the burial site and the cap came out of his pocket at a later date in the dryer.

Politely snipped by me.

Why would Barry plunge a dart into Suzanne, up close and personal, in order to sedate her, if that was his intention?

I remain perplexed by this theory. It seems to me he wouldn't need an incriminating dart for tranquilizing Suzanne when a basic hypodermic needle would suffice. Pretend to hug her while plunging a needle into her back, for example. There must be a reason why he chose the dart to perform this dastardly deed.

Why would prosecutors proceed with the theory of Barry chasing his wife when using a tranquilizer firearm if it's just as likely that he stabbed her with the dart instead? This bit of testimony about Barry chasing Suzanne with a tranquilizer gun caused a great deal of trauma to me when first learning of the diabolical activity.
.

 

[Lilypad13]

Thinking about CC. Barry was supposed to go up to Broomfield Sunday, late afternoon, with Morgan. Barry left without her in the morning, and then called her after 11 am to ask her to get a crew together for the job-gee, I guess he knew he was waiting for a call to be summoned back home. Maybe he expected his replacement to be Cassidy, but Cassidy was out of town. Pinch hitter may have then been Jeff P. I wonder if Barry suggested him after seeing him at DSI. Lots of last minute stuff cause Barry knew he wouldn’t be sticking around, and Morgan couldn’t fix the wall solo. Although later Barry said it wasn’t much work.

Did Barry talk to JP at DSI on May 9th? I thought Barry ran into JP in town shopping? If JP was at DSI did he help with or witness whatever was done to the Bobcat? I need to go watch Lauren’s interview with JP again. I don’t recall any of this DSI stuff very well. JP was working somewhere when Lauren interviewed him, was that at DSI? And didn’t DSI contract Barry to build the wall in Broomfield? Sorry I might have this all mixed up and I don’t mean to confuse anyone.