Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #23

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Poedelini said:
Let's just say he had enough time to prepare this 26 second premade video. Jmo
Click to expand...
Yes he did. But you took this out of context. I still say that, in my opinion using the phrase ‘returned safe’ doesn’t matter. In my opinion, the whole speech was not a sincere plead for her return, safe or unsafe. The post above was about why some posters are bothered by the phrase ‘returned safe’ and that is what I’m responding to.
 
Cindizzi said:
Lauren called in to PE live tonight. @ 54:00

Not much new, except they ask her if she’s learned anything in the past couple days and she says yes, investigators have been “poking around “ in Indiana asking questions about SM and BM’s previous life there.

Click to expand...

BBM:

Looks like we have another piece of the puzzle to add to @gitana1 's list.

#30. Investigators have been in IN looking into SM & BM's life prior to their move to CO.

They don't have mountain lions in Indiana.

Just saying.

JMO.
 
lamlawindy said:
Your list is well-researched and encapsulates the weird actions on Barry Morphew's part during this saga. And yet, all the factors you mention are circumstantial; none of them physically tie Barry Morphew to Suzanne's disappearance.
Click to expand...

So? This is a list of factors that make me suspicious. Not a list of evidence that would cause me to vote guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

But despite the protestations of defense attorneys, and attempts to confuse the public, circumstantial evidence, as you well know, is not distinct from direct evidence when it comes to weight, under the law.

And let’s clarify what kinds of things constitute circumstantial evidence, because there’s always confusion about that as well:

Finger prints.
Blood spatter.
DNA evidence.
Tire tracks.
Foot prints.
A cigarette butt matching what a certain suspect smokes.
Most witness testimony.
A literal smoking gun.
Possession of a murder weapon.
Phone records.
Text messages.

Direct evidence is a confession. So is eyewitness testimony regarding watching the crime that was committed.

The law gives both direct and circumambulating evidence the same weight.
 
rainbowshummingbird said:
The reason his use of the word “safe” bugs me is because Barry uses it as a reward qualifier when he is the one who likely caused Suzanne to be unsafe in the first place. It’s disingenuous because he knows there is no chance of Suzanne’s “safe” return. His reward is a prop in service of his facade as a concerned husband. That’s why it bugs me. He could offer money for information that leads to the arrest of the perpetrator. Who pays out 100k to have themselves arrested?

IMO
Click to expand...
The whole speech was disingenuous. Yes, he should have said what you stated. I wrote the whole thing off as a bunch of hogwash.
 
lauren (on last night's PE interview) also stated she approached/tried to contact not only BM, but many of suzanne's close family members and friends, and was shocked that she could not get one of them to speak to her about suzanne. the only people that would speak to her was suzanne's gym friend, a chemo-friend, and statements from a high school friend and a cousin of barry's. she pleaded with all of them to understand that she only wanted to discuss the kind of person suzanne is, and that she was fighting for her and for answers about their loved one , but she got shut down by every one of them.

it was posted above, but here it is again. starts at 54:30.

 
swedeheart said:
lauren (on last night's PE interview) also stated she approached/tried to contact not only BM, but many of suzanne's close family members and friends, and was shocked that she could not get one of them to speak to her about suzanne. the only people that would speak to her was suzanne's gym friend, a chemo-friend, and statements from a high school friend and a cousin of barry's. she pleaded with all of them to understand that she only wanted to discuss the kind of person suzanne is, and that she was fighting for her and for answers about their loved one , but she got shut down by every one of them.
Click to expand...
^^sbm

I don't believe the people LS reached out to are not talking because they do not have anything to say about their dear friend. It's very clear to me that excluding the gym and chemo acquaintances of SM, the only individuals that have talked to media about SM are friends of BM. Hmmm... I'll just leave it at that. MOO
 
Last edited:
gitana1 said:
So? This is a list of factors that make me suspicious. Not a list of evidence that would cause me to vote guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

But despite the protestations of defense attorneys, and attempts to confuse the public, circumstantial evidence, as you well know, is not distinct from direct evidence when it comes to weight, under the law.

And let’s clarify what kinds of things constitute circumstantial evidence, because there’s always confusion about that as well:

Finger prints.
Blood spatter.
DNA evidence.
Tire tracks.
Foot prints.
A cigarette butt matching what a certain suspect smokes.
Most witness testimony.
A literal smoking gun.
Possession of a murder weapon.
Phone records.
Text messages.

Direct evidence is a confession. So is eyewitness testimony regarding watching the crime that was committed.

The law gives both direct and circumambulating evidence the same weight.
Click to expand...

Yes, a jury or judge may certainly give both direct and circumstantial evidence the same weight. It may also find circumstantial evidence more or less convincing than direct evidence.

Your list is -- as I said -- excellent, but each piece or even the pieces put together as a whole (a) do not physically tie Barry to Suzanne's disappearance or (b) provide a motive on Barry's part to harm Suzanne. The factors, taken together, perhaps paint Barry as odd but don't even rise to a finding of probable cause, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. I would concede that they may amount to reasonable suspicion, if taken as a whole, but that isn't enough for an arrest.

I get it: these are factors that raise your suspicion, not evidence to guilt for a trial. I merely want to point out that the evidence, as you've ably laid it out, is not sufficient for a conviction or even (at this stage) an arrest.
 
Warwick7 said:
Ah yes....
It is circumstantial. And yet circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, and circumstantial evidence is, at times, more credible than direct evidence. The factors @gitana1 mentioned, though succinct and well-organized, do not even amount to probable cause. I will concede, though, that they may constitute reasonable suspicion.
 
dkryder said:
Yeah, makes me ask myself how many cases based mostly on circumstantial evidence have been successfully prosecuted?? V
Click to expand...

A lot. Circumstantial evidence can, at times, be more convincing than direct evidence.

Example: A child molest victim accuses Mr. X of fathering her child. She testifies under oath that she has only ever had sex with Mr. X. A defense expert testifies and the judge admits a DNA test exhibit showing that there is a 99.9% probability that Mr. X is not the child's father. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but I think that most jurors would give more weight to the DNA test.

The point is that the factors mentioned raise suspicions. They do not, though, amount to even probable cause.
 
lamlawindy said:
Your list is well-researched and encapsulates the weird actions on Barry Morphew's part during this saga. And yet, all the factors you mention are circumstantial; none of them physically tie Barry Morphew to Suzanne's disappearance.
Click to expand...
Very true, but a veritable mountain of circumstantial evidence can bury you. Add to @gitana1 ‘s list and @GordianKnot ‘s additions what LE HAVE that we know nothing of and I suspect an avalanche anytime, landing squarely on BM.

Patiently waiting for the catalyst that sets off that avalanche. JMHO
 
lamlawindy said:
Yes, a jury or judge may certainly give both direct and circumstantial evidence the same weight. It may also find circumstantial evidence more or less convincing than direct evidence.

Your list is -- as I said -- excellent, but each piece or even the pieces put together as a whole (a) do not physically tie Barry to Suzanne's disappearance or (b) provide a motive on Barry's part to harm Suzanne. The factors, taken together, perhaps paint Barry as odd but don't even rise to a finding of probable cause, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. I would concede that they may amount to reasonable suspicion, if taken as a whole, but that isn't enough for an arrest.

I get it: these are factors that raise your suspicion, not evidence to guilt for a trial. I merely want to point out that the evidence, as you've ably laid it out, is not sufficient for a conviction or even (at this stage) an arrest.
Click to expand...
But that very long and thorough list of suspicious behavior will be the whipped cream & cherry on the top when added to the factual evidence that LE will present from their investigative process! Yum :p
 
BM's 26 second appeal was already a problem for me from the beginning. It showcased his lack of willingness to work together with LE. That's a problem. If it's my loved one, LE would be my best hope of finding her.

The "safe" stipulation bugs me as well. It does nothing for Suzanne, but keeps his money safe, if he is the only one who knows where she is.

It would be risky for him to offer a reward of any information. That wouldn't protect his money, he might have to pay up. And really, I don't think he's wanting any information coming out.

He probably also thought that the large amount would be impressive, and convince others how much he really wanted Suzanne back. Feels manipulative. I get the feeling he has flashed large money in conversations for a long time. It has always rubbed me the wrong way when people do that. Low class. Moo of course.
 
kkdj said:
I'm just going to throw a little something in here.
I'm in the contracting business for many many years.
I have never ever met a successful contractor that wasn't aggressive in personality when need be.
Click to expand...
I agree, but aggressive in personality is one thing, physical aggression is a whole nuther ball of wax.
 
kkdj said:
I'm just going to throw a little something in here.
I'm in the contracting business for many many years.
I have never ever met a successful contractor that wasn't aggressive in personality when need be.
Click to expand...
I agree with you based on my past work experience, but not once did anyone become physical in their aggression.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 145 more.
Total: 1,949 (members: 146, guests: 1,803)

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
1,803
Total visitors
1,949
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,203
Messages
18,183,899
Members
233,261
Latest member
aib51
Back
Top