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

[Seattle1]

SM'S Siblings as "Victims." Only if Beneficiaries of SM's Estate?
@CGray123 Respectfully,imo SM's siblings are included as both "victims" and/or "victim's immediate family" regardless of whether the sib's receive any gifts thru SM's will (or whether they are named as personal rep, administrator, executor etc.).

* 24-4.1-302. Definitions.
(5) "Victim" means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct, or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative...."

Per this ^ def,
SM's dau's are included.
SM's siblings are also included, by virtue of their family relationship w SM.
If, hypo only, SM's brother AM, is named as SM's personal representative of her estate/will, then AM, would be included.


(6) "Victim's immediate family" means the spouse, any child by birth or adoption, any stepchild, the parent, the stepparent, a sibling, a legal guardian, significant other, or a lawful representative of the victim.

Per this ^ def,
SM's dau's are included.
SM's siblings are also included, by virtue of their family relationship w SM.
If, hypo only, SM's brother AM, is named as SM's personal representative of her estate/will, then AM, would be included.

______________________
OP post says ---VRA includes "other personal representative." bbm
Both statutory def's refer to "lawful representative." bbm

If the purpose of the Victim Rights Act (VRA) is to ensure that crime victims are treated with fairness, respect, dignity and that they are free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse; also helps to ensure that victims are informed of critical stages of the criminal justice process and that they may be present for, and heard, at certain stages as well; don't you think it a stretch that the intent of the general assembly was to include the beneficiaries [of an estate including SM] via the personal representative, appointed by the probate court? For example, any one of us could be named beneficiaries of SM's estate.

I believe the general assembly's intent of including "other lawful representative" was primarily to include the individual representing the deceased victim's minor children that the statute specifically defines as incapacitated persons for the purpose of applying the VRA.

I personally find it confusing trying to include anything other than an individual in the Victim Rights Act. MOO

 

[CGray123]

I'm reading that with an exclusive "or." You're reading it with an inclusive "or."

Exactly! Thanks!

The judge could interpret it narrowly in that sense, and go down the statutory list until he found a person who fit the definition, stop there, and say to any other listed victims, "No, I will listen only to the first on the list." Given the beneficent purpose of the statute, I just don' t think he'd turn away a grief stricken brother whose sense of personal loss was so great he mounted a private expedition to search for SM, or a compassionate sister who was among the last to hear from her. All that assumes that they chose to participate, which they may not; the family seems to exemplify Christian love in many, if not all, dimensions - kindness, generosity, forgiveness, and reconciliation after injury. If he's convicted, the Morphews may actually ask them to speak, come to think of it.

You are right in your priorities, though. Clearly no victims will suffer more immediate, devastating, and long lasting harm than the Morphew daughters. I would look to them first and foremost if I were the judge to assess impacts. They, too, seem to exemplify the Christian ethic in their support for their mother's killer, which will make for an interesting sentencing hearing if the conviction is for a lesser charge than First Degree Murder.

 

[CGray123]

If the purpose of the Victim Rights Act (VRA) is to ensure that crime victims are treated with fairness, respect, dignity and that they are free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse; also helps to ensure that victims are informed of critical stages of the criminal justice process and that they may be present for, and heard, at certain stages as well; don't you think it a stretch that the intent of the general assembly was to include the beneficiaries [of an estate including SM] via the personal representative, appointed by the probate court? For example, any one of us could be named beneficiaries of SM's estate.

I believe the general assembly's intent of including "other lawful representative" was primarily to include the individual representing the deceased victim's minor children that the statute specifically defines as incapacitated persons for the purpose of applying the VRA.

I personally find it confusing trying to include anything other than an individual in the Victim Rights Act. MOO

Thank you for your insight! The statute is more complex than I imagined!

I wonder if the lawful representative could include the executor (personal representative) of the estate of Suzanne Morphew, asking the court for restitution from BM, so that the daughters may inherit what is left of her assets since BM is ineligible. I don't know how that could happen without the daughters' cooperation, but even so I see that as a possibility under the statute.

 

[Seattle1]

The Judge is definitely treating the daughters as victims, in court.

I don't see any evidence yet that he is treating AM or MM as victims, in court. He doesn't mention their access to the AA or their need to "process things."

The purpose of the Victim Rights Act (VRA) is to ensure that crime victims are treated with fairness, respect, dignity and that they are free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse; also helps to ensure that victims are informed of critical stages of the criminal justice process and that they may be present for, and heard, at certain stages as well.

If I recall correctly, Judge Murphy's emphasis on the daughters was specific to bold above and also their local residency (while taking no action whatsoever that would exclude any other victims defined by the VRA).

In responding to the Media Consortium's request for the judge to reconsider the public release of the AA, Judge Murphy emphasized this again when citing that the Media Consortium did not provide for any relief to prevent the daughters from intimidation, harassment, and abuse.

To be clear, the VRA was an amendment to the Colorado Constitution and exists independent of Colorado's probate, conservatorship, and/or wrongful death statutes.

Crime Victim Rights Act (VRA) | Division of Criminal Justice

Judge rejects media consortium’s request to reconsider sealing of Barry Morphew arrest affidavit - Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

 

[Seattle1]

Thank you for your insight! The statute is more complex than I imagined!

I wonder if the lawful representative could include the executor (personal representative) of the estate of Suzanne Morphew, asking the court for restitution from BM, so that the daughters may inherit what is left of her assets since BM is ineligible. I don't know how that could happen without the daughters' cooperation, but even so I see that as a possibility under the statute.

IMO, the state provides a remedy for the daughters (as victims) to claim what is lawfully theirs by both the probate and wrongful death civil statutes whereas the VRA is an amendment to Article II, Bill of Rights of the Colorado Constitution--(as relates to the criminal justice process). MOO

 

[Deleted member 222031]

The purpose of the Victim Rights Act (VRA) is to ensure that crime victims are treated with fairness, respect, dignity and that they are free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse; also helps to ensure that victims are informed of critical stages of the criminal justice process and that they may be present for, and heard, at certain stages as well.

If I recall correctly, Judge Murphy's emphasis on the daughters was specific to bold above and also their local residency (while taking no action whatsoever that would exclude any other victims defined by the VRA).

In responding to the Media Consortium's request for the judge to reconsider the public release of the AA, Judge Murphy emphasized this again when citing that the Media Consortium did not provide for any relief to prevent the daughters from intimidation, harassment, and abuse.

To be clear, the VRA was an amendment to the Colorado Constitution and exists independent of Colorado's probate, conservatorship, and/or wrongful death statutes.

Crime Victim Rights Act (VRA) | Division of Criminal Justice

Judge rejects media consortium’s request to reconsider sealing of Barry Morphew arrest affidavit - Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

You have touched upon another reason why I question this judge's stated rationales. For him to insist that the Media Consortium (MC) must provide a means to protect the daughters from intimidation, harassment or abuse beyond what the MC motion states as the norms for victim protection seems really out of bounds to me.

Future courts can cite this case as reasonable proof to withhold AAs based on the same rationales, which would be absurd in my view.

When the media in their motion gave a list with citations of all the normal protections available to victims under the law, the judge did not even address them.

He made a blanket statement that since redaction was impossible at the time (in his view - I believe the MC's reasoning vacated this), the release of the AA would require the media to find a way to protect the daughters. Short of that, the AA is sealed.

Whatever he is protecting the daughters from must be an extremely substantial danger for him to hide behind how onerous redaction is as proof of how nothing can be done to protect the daughters until that is accomplished.

To me his reasoning is circular and illogical. Perhaps there is a valid basis for that? Maybe that is his intent? I believe none or almost none of that AA will ever see the light of day whether or not BM is bound over.

Please be gentle in any response. Not being a lawyer, I am sure my reasoning has its faults. But I am also sure that appalling others by doubting this judge is not one of them.

JMHO

 

[steeltowngirl]

We also have no idea if her 50 reasons were true, not true, projections, a pros and cons list or what her mood was when she wrote it. People whose marriage is in bad shape and contemplating divorce are generally "looking" for brievances and the cons and not the pros.

‘Murdered by my husband’ would definitely make the “cons” list.

 

[steeltowngirl]

A lot of men carry 100 pound packs for short distances. Some carry that weight for long distances. Barry was said by Suzanne's stepbrother to have carried an entire elk (which I find unbelievable, but at any rate, the emphasis was on how Barry was just about the strongest person he knew).

I myself can lift a 100 pound person off the ground, but cannot carry them. I bet Barry, if he had a backpack designed for game carrying, could easily have gone a half a mile or more with 100 pounds on his back.

From what I read, going uphill with that weight is something mountaineers do as training (I personally trained with far more than I would have actually carried on a long hike). So, from reading what mountaineers say about this, it seems that going down hill is the hard part (the weight forces you to take quicker steps and puts great strain on the knees, and the backpack will tend to pull you over backwards.

Normally, when hiking long distances, a pack of 50-60 lbs is considered upper limit for men, but there are plenty of records of men carrying more than that, especially in the mountain man days.

There's even a Guinness world record for fastest marathon with a 100 pound pack. Barry likes feats of strength and setting records (push-ups at the gym).

Plus wouldn’t he have to be able to lift a person to qualify as a firefighter? The rules may differ for volunteers, or by locality, but as an example, this article about firefighter fitness says:

• People: On top of the gear, there is always a possibility that you will need to carry a person out of a burning building. There is never a guarantee of how small or large a person will be, but for training requirements, you will need to be able to carry at least 150 lb safely. You may need to carry them a distance so keep that in mind.
  

The Fitness Requirements for a Firefighter – Explained

 

[Bluebythec]

As we all sit here waiting for the ruling I have gone back to the beginning and two things that have my attention are 1. what made LE treat this as other than a missing person right off the bat and 2. what speaks to them of premeditation? I see a lot of discussion about how the 11 missed calls may have made him snap and perhaps that's true but that would rule out premeditation I would think? I understand that it can be formed in a matter of minutes but then wouldn't they have gone for a lesser charge and pursued that avenue instead as that would be an easier argument?

 

[justtrish]

As we all sit here waiting for the ruling I have gone back to the beginning and two things that have my attention are 1. what made LE treat this as other than a missing person right off the bat and 2. what speaks to them of premeditation? I see a lot of discussion about how the 11 missed calls may have made him snap and perhaps that's true but that would rule out premeditation I would think? I understand that it can be formed in a matter of minutes but then wouldn't they have gone for a lesser charge and pursued that avenue instead as that would be an easier argument?

I think it's immediately suspicious that she is alone on Mother's Day and going for a bike ride, but finding the bike in a condition that wasn't really a condition to be riding in/wrecking like that. I'm also curious when they noticed the bedroom doorframe was busted. If that was the first day upon searching for her, then that could have made them suspicious as well. Her car being at home with her purse in it and the camelback in the car. If they were told she usually drove the car to her biking trails then I think it's suspicious that she didn't do that this time and her water source is in her car not with her.

 

[Bluebythec]

I think it's immediately suspicious that she is alone on Mother's Day and going for a bike ride, but finding the bike in a condition that wasn't really a condition to be riding in/wrecking like that. I'm also curious when they noticed the bedroom doorframe was busted. If that was the first day upon searching for her, then that could have made them suspicious as well. Her car being at home with her purse in it and the camelback in the car. If they were told she usually drove the car to her biking trails then I think it's suspicious that she didn't do that this time and her water source is in her car not with her.

Those are all great points but I'm wondering if there is something more that didn't come out at the PH that we are yet to hear?

 

[Seattle1]

You have touched upon another reason why I question this judge's stated rationales. For him to insist that the Media Consortium (MC) must provide a means to protect the daughters from intimidation, harassment or abuse beyond what the MC motion states as the norms for victim protection seems really out of bounds to me.

Future courts can cite this case as reasonable proof to withhold AAs based on the same rationales, which would be absurd in my view.

When the media in their motion gave a list with citations of all the normal protections available to victims under the law, the judge did not even address them.

He made a blanket statement that since redaction was impossible at the time (in his view - I believe the MC's reasoning vacated this), the release of the AA would require the media to find a way to protect the daughters. Short of that, the AA is sealed.

Whatever he is protecting the daughters from must be an extremely substantial danger for him to hide behind how onerous redaction is as proof of how nothing can be done to protect the daughters until that is accomplished.

To me his reasoning is circular and illogical. Perhaps there is a valid basis for that? Maybe that is his intent? I believe none or almost none of that AA will ever see the light of day whether or not BM is bound over.

Please be gentle in any response. Not being a lawyer, I am sure my reasoning has its faults. But I am also sure that appalling others by doubting this judge is not one of them.

JMHO

^^bbm

I believe that the benefits of delaying the public release of an AA until after the preliminary hearing outweigh the public right to know every time. However, to be clear, I believe and support that the AA should be released at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing.

I disagree with OP's position because I think Judge Murphy is both following his responsibility specific to the Victim Rights Act** (VRA) and filed a response that addressed the challenges provided by the Consortium.

I also don't think Judge Murphy implied that the MC provide a means to protect the daughters-- but a viable suggestion to reasonably prevent intimidation, harassment, and abuse. In this case, knowledge is power. I think a reasonable suggestion includes giving the parties time to familiarize themselves with the investigation before jointly redacting the 130- page document prior to public release.

IMO, 'time' seems to be the enemy of MC -- regardless of the reason. MOO
_____________________
Judge rejects media consortium’s request to reconsider sealing of Barry Morphew arrest affidavit - Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

July 21, 2021

[..]

“The Media Consortium questions the legitimacy of denying public access to the entire Affidavit based upon the length and details contained within it and also questions the likelihood that this information can’t be redacted,” the judge wrote. “However, it wasn’t merely the details and length of the Affidavit that resulted in the Court’s decision to restrict public access.

“It was also the Court’s desire that efforts at redaction be done meaningfully and with reliable input from the parties, which cannot occur until the parties have had time to familiarize themselves with the investigation.”

[..]

..... releasing the document prior to an investigation conducted by Barry Morphew’s defense attorneys could hamper their ability to effectively prepare a defense. The judge also raised concerns about the potential for harassment of the Morphews’ two daughters.**

[..]

... noted that Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 55.1 — which went into effect May 10 — “imposes a heightened burden on any party seeking to overcome the public’s strong presumptive right to access” to a court record.

Zansberg argued there are “multiple adequate and less restrictive means” to protect the safety and well being of the Morphew children, other than closing public access to the entire arrest affidavit. If the affidavit contains extremely sensitive personal or private information unrelated to the prosecution’s need for the arrest warrant, he wrote, “Rule 55.1 provides that such information may be redacted.”

But the alternatives suggested by Zansberg “only respond to abuse or harassment and do nothing to prevent it,” Murphy wrote in his latest order, issued July 16. “Therefore, in furtherance of protecting the Morphew daughters from abuse or harassment, the Court will allow time for meaningful efforts at redaction to be made.”**

The judge also rejected the media consortium’s contention that the court is required under Rule 55.1 to find that “no less restrictive means” exist to protect Barry Morphew’s right to fair trial. Morphew’s fair trial rights “were not identified by the Court as a substantial interest in its Order,” Murphy wrote.

“Therefore, there is no requirement that the Court consider less restrictive means or balance Mr. Morphew’s fair trial rights against the presumption of public access.”


**24-4.1-302.5 Rights afforded to victims - defined.
(1)(a) The right to be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse throughout the criminal justice process.

http://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/dcj/DCJ External Website/OVP/CRS 24-4.1-302.5 Rights Afforded to Victims_Definitions.pdf

 

[Boxer]

Those are all great points but I'm wondering if there is something more that didn't come out at the PH that we are yet to hear?

Probably, the defense wasted as much time as they could objecting and asking for opinions from witnesses not qualified to give them, to seriously trim the prosecutions presentation.

 

[skyedaze]

As we all sit here waiting for the ruling I have gone back to the beginning and two things that have my attention are 1. what made LE treat this as other than a missing person right off the bat and 2. what speaks to them of premeditation? I see a lot of discussion about how the 11 missed calls may have made him snap and perhaps that's true but that would rule out premeditation I would think? I understand that it can be formed in a matter of minutes but then wouldn't they have gone for a lesser charge and pursued that avenue instead as that would be an easier argument?

IIRC at the bike scene he was not looking for her, the bike wheel was locked and he was speaking of her in past tense. Plus MM2 boyfriend said in the garage of the house that SM always takes her car and camelback...and both were still in the garage. And when LE would tell him to not touch the bike he kept doing it...repeatedly.
and excuse me but we all know he's a cr@p liar...I'm sure they picked up on that right away.

 

[jakat]

I always feel like a voyeur into her most private of thoughts when the 50 list is discussed. It seems to be written in a personalized shorthand meant for her eyes only.

Not criticizing discussion of it since it is a form of evidence, however limited. But if it were my list, I would hate it being public. My Bible was stolen. It had poems and personal thoughts of mine in it that I would never want shared after death when I could give no perspective or understanding or even an update since that was 20+ years ago.

The 50 list really touches me deeply.

JMO

I'm with you on this. My Bible was also stolen a few years ago. My mom had given it to me shortly before she passed away. It was her Bible and it contained the same sort of things yours did, pictures, letters, notes. Who would steal a Bible? I still feel violated to this day.

The 50 list bothers me very much. It was something so very personal of Suzanne's.

 

[Bluebythec]

Probably, the defense wasted as much time as they could objecting and asking for opinions from witnesses not qualified to give them, to seriously trim the prosecutions presentation.

That's what I'm wondering = is there still another bombshell to come?

 

[Bluebythec]

IIRC at the bike scene he was not looking for her, the bike wheel was locked and he was speaking of her in past tense. Plus MM2 boyfriend said in the garage of the house that SM always takes her car and camelback...and both were still in the garage. And when LE would tell him to not touch the bike he kept doing it...repeatedly.
and excuse me but we all know he's a cr@p liar...I'm sure they picked up on that right away.

BM strikes me as the type that could charm the hell out of gullible women but that smart men would see right through him. In my experience narcissists can fool the opposite sex but not so much their own gender. JMO

 

[Seattle1]

BM strikes me as the type that could charm the hell out of gullible women but that smart men would see right through him. In my experience narcissists can fool the opposite sex but not so much their own gender. JMO

Yes, I agree. The narc soon gets tired of playing the nice guy. JMO

 

[DizzyB]

The neighbor was asked by Barry to check for Suzanne’s bike, after she told him her car was there. MH knew she used her car to get to the bike trails, and she never would have biked local because of the “crazy climb”. Red flag. Journal missing, Barry said they were burning old files in the fireplace. Who burns pendaflex folders with the tabs in them ? One steak, same plate. Accidental airplane mode. Suzanne keeps her phone off all day and night, even with her girls away out of town. No bobcat for a bobcat job. Doesn’t pick up MG as planned. Adds new guy to a crew last minute, after he realizes there isn’t much work to do. Drives 3 hours to do 11 minutes of work, watch television and throw away trash in 5 different places. Making a banner full of red flags.

 

[Tiff23fr]

This thread is reaching capacity and will close in 5 minutes…