Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #60 *ARREST*

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re the August 9 hearing -- it is for 1) a preliminary hearing for the judge to decide if there's enough evidence to proceed to trial; and 2) "proof evident/presumption great"-- this is the issue of whether bail should be denied if "the court finds the proof is evident or the presumption is great as to the crime alleged to have been committed and finds that the public would be placed in significant peril if the accused were released on bail."

Suzanne Morphew Murder: Husband Barry Morphew Appears in Court

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 16. Criminal Proceedings § 16-4-101 | FindLaw
 
Last edited:
I would love to listen to the defense lawyers Eytan and Nielsen speaking with Barry.
Or trying to do so.
Wonder if he'll fire them if they don't represent him in the manner that they're instructed to -- by Barry himself ?
I can imagine him saying , "Listen. This is what you're going to say. Do as you're told."
Although by now his bluster has been dealt a low blow.
Pity.

Thus far they seem to be in a 'coddling' mode, i.e., describing his incarceration accommodations as a "cage".

I'm interested in seeing if they're (defense) going to go at the "LE messed up " angle ?
Almost wish they would, as LE have the goods in an enormous amount.
And about that bike.
One would assume Eytan and Nielsen would leave 'Barry's bike theory' alone -- they have to be intelligent enough to see it for what it is.
The worst of red herrings possible.

LE initially thought they were dealing with a missing lady who had maybe been attacked by a mountain lion or fallen off her bike and got herself into a creek.
Barry was the one (& whomever he instructed) who pushed the : 'crime scene was messed up by LE ' , theory.
It must have perked up LE's antenna that something was amiss, the first day.
Of course they didn't say anything, they've been remarkably silent.
Imo.

Good points. I would also love to be a fly on the wall when BM talks to his defense team and see how that goes. :confused:!

JMO, BM seems to be bent on claiming where the bike was found was the "crime scene". As you said, and I agree, that scene is a red herring and LE seems to have been quick to pick up on that, JMO, and there was nothing there to support BM's claims of the scenarios of what could have happened to Suzanne as that scene, IMO.

It will be very interesting to see what BM's defense team comes up with as a strategy to defend BM. If there is physical evidence that is hard to refute, that will make their strategy even more interesting, IMO. If the evidence is circumstantial, it's still evidence. Circumstantial evidence was enough to convince the jury in the Scott Peterson case that he was guilty and he received the DP. The DP in his case was overturned recently, but his murder conviction still stands. Peterson had a very famous and very expensive defense attorney and IMO, he was unable to launch any semblance of a successful defense because Peterson had dug his own grave so badly and the circumstantial evidence was so compelling. In that case, the circumstantial evidence only pointed to motive but it was enough to convince a jury.

I'm as interested in the circumstantial evidence as I am in any physical evidence against BM. Her siblings and her stepbrother have been very outspoken, IMO. I listened to the recent interview given by Suzanne's sister and I thought she was careful, but she was more forthcoming with some specifics. She said she was surprised when Suzanne called her out of the blue to announce they were moving to Colorado. Suzanne also told her sister about her suspicions of infidelity and her sister cautioned her that if there were problems in Indiana, there would be problems in Colorado. And then there was the $100,000 loan BM managed to get from Suzanne's elderly father for the Colorado house and when his father-in-law called BM to get a promissory note, BM flipped it around to being Suzanne's loan.

This is an incredibly tragic case and it's going to be very interesting as well to see what develops as things move forward.

All JMO
 
So, you're saying that if there's any way that CO law permits it, he should get bail?

Well, CO law says that if someone is a flight risk (sole determiner of that fact? the judge) can be denied bail. So I'd say the opposite. If CO law permits denying bail to a flight risk, there couldn't be a better example than the case of Barry Morphew. Traditionally, liquidation of real assets in a state, moving out of one's sole residence in the state (in this case the Poncha Springs condo) and telling people you're leaving the state are each capable of showing flight risk (so it's 3 strikes for Barry).

Further, while the term "capital offense" is related to the meaning of "capital punishment" it really means "highest level of offense" and the term "capital" means the same thing in both phrases ("highest, capstone offense - such as murder in the first degree). So CO law also provides that bail can be denied for first degree murder. Who decides? The Judge. It's set up that way for a reason.

So while the Judge could decide otherwise (basically saying he thinks Barry is not a flight risk and that Barry will do well with an ankle bracelet - despite having no where to live and no known residence), that would be a really atypical thing for any judge. This particular judge seems very intelligent and willing to do his thinking on such matters - and right now, he isn't going to hear any more about it until August 9, 2021.

Innocent people can still be held for trial, based on the facts of the case (which the Judge knows a lot about at this point) and on their flight risk. Barry, by liquidating all his real assets and possibly moving them out of the country, and by visiting Mexico in February, and by loading his stuff into trucks...pretty much fulfilled all criteria for being a flight risk (he ought to have consulted attorneys beforehand and not been such a cheapskate).

I also think he's a danger to himself and to others, but that's an entirely separate issue and fortunately, the law allows the judge lots of latitude to think about the risks of letting Barry Morphew out of jail - CO definitely permits him to stay without bail, as it should be.
Excellent summation @10ofRods
Allow me add just 1 additional concern the courts might have and that would be witness tampering/threatening witnesses/bribing witnesses.
BM may have no problem with any of the fore-mentioned as seen in his charge:
COUNT 5: ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE A PUBLIC SERVANT, C.R.S. 18-8-306 (F4){24051}
So I think these are valid concern because he’s read the AA which gives him information of who possible prosecution witnesses are.

BM needs to stay right where he is until proven innocent. (But that’s not happening) MOO My 2centavos :)
 
MOO, I have a feeling enough biological evidence was found at the home to prove it would be inconsistent with SM being alive, and they also found biological evidence at a site that can be connected to BM which ties to the tampering with a dead body charge.
I am also adding the hotel room to that list. Biological evidence may have been left there. The CBI was quick to go there and obtain cc camera footage from the hotel and nearby businesses.
 
I think he is guilty but until he is tried and convicted he is considered innocent in our system. If Colorado law permits, he should get bail. He will have to surrender his passports, they'll possible freeze accounts, he won't be able to leave the county or at the most Colorado and he will have an ankle monitor. He will get his just rewards when the state convicts him.

I think if they released he would bail. He needs to stay in his cage.

JMO
 
Date Len Appearance Name Hearing Type Case # Location Division
8/9/21-Murder
8:00 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Preliminary Hearing D82021CR78 Chaffee County Division 2

8/9/21-Voter Fraud
8:00 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Status Conference D82021CR85 Chaffee County Division 2

8/10/21
9:30 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Preliminary Hearing D82021CR78 Chaffee County Division 2

8/10/21
9:30 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Status Conference D82021CR85 Chaffee County Division 2

8/23/21
8:00 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Preliminary Hearing D82021CR78 Chaffee County Division 2

8/24/21
9:30 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Preliminary Hearing D82021CR78 Chaffee County Division 2

8/24/21
9:30 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Status Conference D82021CR85 Chaffee County Division 2

link: Seventh Judicial District » Docket Search
 
Good points. I would also love to be a fly on the wall when BM talks to his defense team and see how that goes. :confused:!

JMO, BM seems to be bent on claiming where the bike was found was the "crime scene". As you said, and I agree, that scene is a red herring and LE seems to have been quick to pick up on that, JMO, and there was nothing there to support BM's claims of the scenarios of what could have happened to Suzanne as that scene, IMO.

It will be very interesting to see what BM's defense team comes up with as a strategy to defend BM. If there is physical evidence that is hard to refute, that will make their strategy even more interesting, IMO. If the evidence is circumstantial, it's still evidence. Circumstantial evidence was enough to convince the jury in the Scott Peterson case that he was guilty and he received the DP. The DP in his case was overturned recently, but his murder conviction still stands. Peterson had a very famous and very expensive defense attorney and IMO, he was unable to launch any semblance of a successful defense because Peterson had dug his own grave so badly and the circumstantial evidence was so compelling. In that case, the circumstantial evidence only pointed to motive but it was enough to convince a jury.

I'm as interested in the circumstantial evidence as I am in any physical evidence against BM. Her siblings and her stepbrother have been very outspoken, IMO. I listened to the recent interview given by Suzanne's sister and I thought she was careful, but she was more forthcoming with some specifics. She said she was surprised when Suzanne called her out of the blue to announce they were moving to Colorado. Suzanne also told her sister about her suspicions of infidelity and her sister cautioned her that if there were problems in Indiana, there would be problems in Colorado. And then there was the $100,000 loan BM managed to get from Suzanne's elderly father for the Colorado house and when his father-in-law called BM to get a promissory note, BM flipped it around to being Suzanne's loan.

This is an incredibly tragic case and it's going to be very interesting as well to see what develops as things move forward.

All JMO
Peterson may get a new trial altogether because of several factors related to the original investigation and trial so that is something to keep that in mind. The judges now are very careful to preserve the integrity of proceedings just so there aren’t appeals.
 
Why didn't Watts get bail? Is the drawing line because he had already confessed to one "killing"? (But, he had an (imaginary) excuse that he killed her to possibly protect Cece.) Yeah I know it wasn't true, but I don't see why BM should get bail if Watts didn't. Honest question, do only murder suspects professing innocence possibly get bail? I'd have to say I hope he doesn't get it.

Maybe he'll lose his temper and start in a fight in the meantime, making it harder.

shouldn't the fact that he was on the brink of leaving the state count for something re bail?
Watts confessing is a biggie :). If there is a bail hearing for Barry you know the prosecution will argue he is a flight risk. I think that is a given on their side.
 
I would love to listen to the defense lawyers Eytan and Nielsen speaking with Barry.
Or trying to do so.
Wonder if he'll fire them if they don't represent him in the manner that they're instructed to -- by Barry himself ?
I can imagine him saying , "Listen. This is what you're going to say. Do as you're told."
Although by now his bluster has been dealt a low blow.
Pity.

Thus far they seem to be in a 'coddling' mode, i.e., describing his incarceration accommodations as a "cage".

I'm interested in seeing if they're (defense) going to go at the "LE messed up " angle ?
Almost wish they would, as LE have the goods in an enormous amount.
And about that bike.
One would assume Eytan and Nielsen would leave 'Barry's bike theory' alone -- they have to be intelligent enough to see it for what it is.
The worst of red herrings possible.

LE initially thought they were dealing with a missing lady who had maybe been attacked by a mountain lion or fallen off her bike and got herself into a creek.
Barry was the one (& whomever he instructed) who pushed the : 'crime scene was messed up by LE ' , theory.
It must have perked up LE's antenna that something was amiss, the first day.
Of course they didn't say anything, they've been remarkably silent.
Imo.

Good points. I would also love to be a fly on the wall when BM talks to his defense team and see how that goes. :confused:!

JMO, BM seems to be bent on claiming where the bike was found was the "crime scene". As you said, and I agree, that scene is a red herring and LE seems to have been quick to pick up on that, JMO, and there was nothing there to support BM's claims of the scenarios of what could have happened to Suzanne as that scene, IMO.

It will be very interesting to see what BM's defense team comes up with as a strategy to defend BM. If there is physical evidence that is hard to refute, that will make their strategy even more interesting, IMO. If the evidence is circumstantial, it's still evidence. Circumstantial evidence was enough to convince the jury in the Scott Peterson case that he was guilty and he received the DP. The DP in his case was overturned recently, but his murder conviction still stands. Peterson had a very famous and very expensive defense attorney and IMO, he was unable to launch any semblance of a successful defense because Peterson had dug his own grave so badly and the circumstantial evidence was so compelling. In that case, the circumstantial evidence only pointed to motive but it was enough to convince a jury.

I'm as interested in the circumstantial evidence as I am in any physical evidence against BM. Her siblings and her stepbrother have been very outspoken, IMO. I listened to the recent interview given by Suzanne's sister and I thought she was careful, but she was more forthcoming with some specifics. She said she was surprised when Suzanne called her out of the blue to announce they were moving to Colorado. Suzanne also told her sister about her suspicions of infidelity and her sister cautioned her that if there were problems in Indiana, there would be problems in Colorado. And then there was the $100,000 loan BM managed to get from Suzanne's elderly father for the Colorado house and when his father-in-law called BM to get a promissory note, BM flipped it around to being Suzanne's loan.

This is an incredibly tragic case and it's going to be very interesting as well to see what develops as things move forward.

All JMO
Peterson may get a new trial altogether because of several factors related to the original investigation and trial so that is something to keep that in mind. The judges now are very careful to preserve the integrity of proceedings just so there aren’t appeals.

I do see where he may get a new trial on the guilt phase, but that apparently hasn't been determined yet. Will be interesting to see if he does get a new trial whether the new evidence is enough to overcome the circumstantial evidence that was presented at the original trial. JMO
 
And then there was the $100,000 loan BM managed to get from Suzanne's elderly father for the Colorado house and when his father-in-law called BM to get a promissory note, BM flipped it around to being Suzanne's loan.

This is an incredibly tragic case and it's going to be very interesting as well to see what develops as things move forward.

All JMO
Snipped for focus
Bolding mine.

Agreed.
I'm sadly thinking Barry will somehow attempt to pin the blame on his innocent wife.
"Oh, Suzanne....."

Imo.
 
Last edited:
I missed the hearings yesterday, how do we know they have biological evidence? Or was the prosecution simply expressing IF such evidence exists they also want to test? Or was that potentially in the arrest warrant? The only documents I'm aware the prosecution has is the arrest avadavat that the original public defender got on the thumb drive after the original hearing.
I agree, we don't. It's possible there was some mention in the sealed AA that was delivered to BM's first defense team on a thumb drive on May 6, or it could just be speculation about discovery and IF biological evidence exists. MOO
 
I don't think BM will be released on bail. One of the important things they will consider is his "flight risk". IMO, he is a significant risk. He has basically liquidated his entire life in the past year. Now, it's just Barry, the F-350 and Bob (the Cat).

The question becomes, where is all that money? Did Barry deposit it in his checking account? I don't think so. Did he use it to pay off significant debt? Maybe. Did he "invest" in LLC's? Maybe. IMO tracing the money/real estate trail will be important to his case.

On another note, why does BM keep making so many trips to Indiana?

Finally, several threads back someone gave a great example of what is contained in an AA. Does anyone remember who made the post? I'd like to search back and find it and a member name would help!

Take care,
 
Because I'm constantly confused by the terminology I found this short article helpful in terms of understanding the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence:

Direct versus Circumstantial Evidence - dummies

Most often, evidence identified through forensic science is circumstantial, though direct evidence such as witness and victim statements or suspect confessions may impact the ME’s interpretation of test results or his reconstruction of the crime scene.


In other words most physical evidence (including biological) tends to be circumstantial unless the crime has actually been directly witnessed or confessed to by the suspect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
142
Guests online
2,665
Total visitors
2,807

Forum statistics

Threads
590,021
Messages
17,929,113
Members
228,039
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top