Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #83

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know what I would like to see? Strong evidence refuting BM's character assassination to Suzanne by making her use of antidepressants and pain medicine appear as drug addiction. I'll bet not witnesses can be found to attest to her drinking to excess, either. To me, this is another DV act by him. How many times did he withhold/hide or force her to stop taking her meds? Did her best friend ever see or hear her drunk? His characterization of her during their last days together is so telling.....about him!
MOO

He really does obsess on alcohol/drugs.

I severely doubt this slight 110 pound gym-going, cancer-surviving gal really partook in much.

Anyone else notice in the AA how much exaggeration and hyperbole Barry uses? Disturbing.
 
Interesting conversation. Here's an observation I think is interesting. The elements of Murder in the First Degree do not require the prosecution to prove how, when, or where the defendant committed the crime. They don't require proof of means, motive, or opportunity. All the jury needs to believe is that BM intentionally killed his wife, and that he did so after deliberation.

All the discussion about what's missing in the affidavit is an effort to focus on the hole and ignore the doughnut IMO.

Here's the statute:

Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-3-102. Murder in the first degree

(1) A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if: (a) After deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, he causes the death of that person or of another person...

And the jury instructions: (Colorado Judicial Branch - Supreme Court - Committees - Model Criminal Jury Instructions Committee) as there was some discussion around the nuances of what constitutes the bar with regard to beyond reasonable doubt. Although the word reasonable in and of itself is going to have different tolerances for one person to another which is where the complexity enters and probably why the word "beyond" is used preceeding the words reasonable doubt.


After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree (after deliberation).

After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree (after deliberation).
 
You know what I would like to see? Strong evidence refuting BM's character assassination to Suzanne by making her use of antidepressants and pain medicine appear as drug addiction. I'll bet not witnesses can be found to attest to her drinking to excess, either. To me, this is another DV act by him. How many times did he withhold/hide or force her to stop taking her meds? Did her best friend ever see or hear her drunk? His characterization of her during their last days together is so telling.....about him!
MOO

He really does obsess on alcohol/drugs.

I severely doubt this slight 110 pound gym-going, cancer-surviving gal really partook in much.

Anyone else notice in the AA how much exaggeration and hyperbole Barry uses? Disturbing.
 
The AA has confirmed a few things for me. Barry doesn’t have an ethical bone in his body. He’s a liar, who automatically lies, when the truth would probably serve him better. He abuses everyone and everything, from Suzanne and his daughters to the animals that have the misfortune to cross his path. When things don’t go his way, he blames others. When that fails, he blames god.
 
Let's play Connect the Dots:
  • Unknown 2nd device first used on 11/30/2019. (pg. 44)
  • “The last travel I have for (SM) returning from San Jose, Mexico on 12/02/2019.” (pg. 45)
  • 91 associations to Barry’s iphone between 11/30/2019 – 5/12/2020 (pg. 44)
  • 0 associations to Barry’s iphone after 5/12/2020 –all the way up to the time of arrest a year later (pg. 44)
Seems to me that Barry bought a burner phone while in Mexico and used it to plan his wife’s murder.
I think you might be on to something here @StarrDetective.
Regarding BBM above, iirc 5/12/20 is also the day BM was caught going through the trash outside the Poncha Market after hours. Perhaps he wasn’t trying to retrieve something but possibly dumping something in that trash, pushing it down under other trash to conceal it. Did he possibly dump a Burner phone on 5/12/20 in the PM trash?
Hmmm could be, they’re small and would be fairly easy to conceal under other trash.
Gee, BM caught with his hands in the trash on the same day a 2nd device ceases to have associations with BM’s iPhone. Curious indeed.

Speaking of trash, seems to be a fairly common theme in this case, not least of which and dirtiest, nastiest piece of trash of all- BM himself.



IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne
 
Last edited:
Thanks, @Cindizzi -- that did not take long. Less than 24 hours to get permission to leave the County!
Looks like CMk reported it yesterday. I missed that.

https://twitter.com/carolamckinley/status/1440023642717495299?s=21

As the voluminous arrest affidavit is released, #barrymorphew is released from jail with an ankle monitor and an order to stay in Chaffee County unless he goes to Denver to meet with this attorneys. One of his daughters helps him into a vehicle here. @DenverGazette
 
You never know for sure how a jury will go. Take a look at our discussions here. Many people are convinced he did it, but there are a number of WS’ers who don’t think there’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are the folks that need to be convinced or BM will get acquitted at the worst or a hung jury at the least.
I was told many years ago, when newspapers were our major source of news, that articles were written to an eighth grade level to make them understandable to most people.
This is how the facts have to be presented in this case. It needs to be a story.

There is a specific plot structure that most stories follow. In fact, there are six main plot parts: exposition, conflict, rising action, climax, falling action and resolution.
partoftheplot-beginning-middle-end-663378_orig.png



1. Exposition
The exposition is the introduction to the story. Characters and setting are introduced.

2. Conflict
The conflict is the primary problem that drives the plot of the story, often a main goal for the main character to achieve or overcome.

3. Rising action
In rising action, the story becomes complicated. The main character is in crisis and there are multiple moments of conflict that escalate and create tension.

4. Climax
The climax is the peak of the action. At this point, the main character confront the big conflict. The most action, drama, change, and excitement occurs here. A choice must be made that will affect the rest of the story.

5. Falling action
In falling action, the conflict that arose as a result of the climax can start being resolved. The story begins to slow down and complications begin to resolve.

6. Resolution
The resolution is the end of the story and it brings the story to its happy or tragic ending. The conflict from the climax has been resolved and there is a new sense of normalcy for the characters.

Main parts of a plot in a story

The jurors need to be able to follow the plot and think that the conclusion is believable and true.
It is important in this case that the Prosecution keeps the Defense in check and doesn’t let them run off with confusing story lines. The defense will throw out all kinds of confusing facts about DNA and data bits until the jurors are rolling their eyes and falling asleep.
The Prosecutor will need to wake them up and explain clearly and concisely why the defense is incorrect.
A circumstantial case can be a big bore to some jurors. They are suspicious of this type of evidence. They want the smoking gun.
It is the prosecutor’s duty to make this case interesting, factual but not confusing, and clear as to the guilt of the defendant. If our prosecutor in this case can do that, we will have a conviction on Murder 1.
 
I was up so late reading AA and woke up sick today!
Although the AA only had little details (as opposed to “smoking gun”) I am just at a loss to see how anyone COULD give him the benefit of the doubt. I’m truly offended by the notion.

All of the calculation, all of the moving around and preparations he took, and no doubt the months and months of absorbing forensic studies and processing the best way to leave ZERO traces (he told them over and over there would be nothing? He was so confident)

I was blown away by a couple things- his comfort in his sexism is deplorable.. the way he views women and their sexual/familial/financial obligation was absolutely mortifying to read, the fact he uttered these aloud to the agents was shocking!

But also- he’s so stupid! I had no idea he was as dumb as he is- the way he speaks in circles and contradictions and hypocrisy kept me laughing (through the sadness of course) but I was floored to see just how basic and unintelligible his thoughts are. His constant attempts at deflection and manipulation were so easy to see right through.

I really hope prosecution gets extra help! They have enough for a conviction, but only if they get someone who can contend with his bull-headed defense team.

Moo!
 
I do think we'll hear way more at trial. I was glad to see the two CC's in the AA. One of them should make a very interesting witness, indeed. You'll just have to wait for it - or go suss it out on your own.

The jury is not in charge of sentencing in CO, is my understanding - they are to figure out the degree of murder. I think Barry's frantic construction of an alibi on Saturday is evidence of premeditation. He actually did no work in Broomfield (very little, anyway, besides cleaning his shovels). We don't know that there was no cadaverine (dog hits on the Bobcat may have been verified with other techniques - meaning that even if the Bobcat never moved from that spot on May 9-10, Barry may have transferred cadaverine to it - it was on the seat).

Using a combination of factors to indicate death in no body cases is a precedent long respected in CO (and other) courts. It's not just pings. It's total cessation of communication, she doesn't have her ID with her, she didn't make it to her maintenance chemotherapy (after religiously attending for over a year), she has contacted no friends, she missed an important wedding, she hasn't contacted JL, and I think we'll see no money has been taken out of any of her accounts. Juries have found many a murderer guilty using even half of that. It's actually an interesting thing to look up (I'm not one of those who remembers all the case names - but others here do).

Why do you think absence of cell pings is what is being used to establish that she's dead? Why not at least include phone calls as well?

While we don't know their cash story - LE does. And it's probably in the discovery evidence by now. The AA was written in haste, the evidence is submitted in an ongoing fashion (and the Judge can look at all of it, if he is so inclined - and I bet he is).

So, if we find out at trial that there was cadaverine on the seat of Barry's Bobcat, that the SIM in the Bobcat doesn't detect whether Bobcat was turned on and movement of the Bobcat needs to be a certain distance before it's retained in memory - in short, if a Bobcat expert says all that, you don't think that will be convincing?

Suzanne mentions being wrestled and being pinned down two times. Barry says he "blocked her" with his body (but not his hands -if you don't think that's DV, that's fine - but many people do). There's the financial control (which is part of a pattern of DV - most experts would say that controlling behavior is DV - you may think it's just beatings, but that's not what most juries think, thankfully).

Would you help me out, though, by explaining what kind of violence would need to take place for you to think there was a prior history? We have a prior history of fighting (a lot, enough to scare the daughter), and I'll agree that fighting is not DV. But blocking someone with one's body (especially if the person is small and the blocker is linebacker sized) is DV. I know this because I do DV training for LE and we include slides of this behavior. ANY blocking of a person's movement is DV (grabbing an arm, blocking a door, putting an arm across a door and leaning against the frame so that the person has to contort themselves and be vulnerable while passing, hair pulling, scratching, etc). Barry won't take the stand, so he can't claim self defense (and who would buy that?)

Where I live, keeping a loaded weapon inside the house is considered threshold domestic violence if it's within reach of the offender, even if they don't go for it, it's just lying around. Most DV cases don't come to murder - or to trial, but I'm truly curious whether people here think Barry's admitted behavior (body blocking her) or Suzanne's own words (wrestling away, being pinned down on the bed) are not DV?
I believe Barry’s threats of suicide with a gun would be considered as DV. Also, the younger daughter’s suggestion that Suzanne get a restraining order seems to be evidence of DV. His admittance of his accidental clipping of Suzanne’s nose.
 
I was up so late reading AA and woke up sick today!
Although the AA only had little details (as opposed to “smoking gun”) I am just at a loss to see how anyone COULD give him the benefit of the doubt. I’m truly offended by the notion.

All of the calculation, all of the moving around and preparations he took, and no doubt the months and months of absorbing forensic studies and processing the best way to leave ZERO traces (he told them over and over there would be nothing? He was so confident)

I was blown away by a couple things- his comfort in his sexism is deplorable.. the way he views women and their sexual/familial/financial obligation was absolutely mortifying to read, the fact he uttered these aloud to the agents was shocking!

But also- he’s so stupid! I had no idea he was as dumb as he is- the way he speaks in circles and contradictions and hypocrisy kept me laughing (through the sadness of course) but I was floored to see just how basic and unintelligible his thoughts are. His constant attempts at deflection and manipulation were so easy to see right through.

I really hope prosecution gets extra help! They have enough for a conviction, but only if they get someone who can contend with his bull-headed defense team.

Moo!
Is it possible that Barry’s stupidity is a strategy as way to confuse and obsfucate? Is it possible for someone to be as dumb as Barry, looks, speaks and sounds? He seems so idiotic that he appears to be like a fictional invention.
 
Interesting conversation. Here's an observation I think is interesting. The elements of Murder in the First Degree do not require the prosecution to prove how, when, or where the defendant committed the crime. They don't require proof of means, motive, or opportunity. All the jury needs to believe is that BM intentionally killed his wife, and that he did so after deliberation.

All the discussion about what's missing in the affidavit is an effort to focus on the hole and ignore the doughnut IMO.

Here's the statute:

Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-3-102. Murder in the first degree

(1) A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if: (a) After deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, he causes the death of that person or of another person...

And the jury instructions: (Colorado Judicial Branch - Supreme Court - Committees - Model Criminal Jury Instructions Committee) as there was some discussion around the nuances of what constitutes the bar with regard to beyond reasonable doubt. Although the word reasonable in and of itself is going to have different tolerances for one person to another which is where the complexity enters and probably why the word "beyond" is used preceeding the words reasonable doubt.


After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree (after deliberation).

After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree (after deliberation).

I do think we'll hear way more at trial. I was glad to see the two CC's in the AA. One of them should make a very interesting witness, indeed. You'll just have to wait for it - or go suss it out on your own.

The jury is not in charge of sentencing in CO, is my understanding - they are to figure out the degree of murder. I think Barry's frantic construction of an alibi on Saturday is evidence of premeditation. He actually did no work in Broomfield (very little, anyway, besides cleaning his shovels). We don't know that there was no cadaverine (dog hits on the Bobcat may have been verified with other techniques - meaning that even if the Bobcat never moved from that spot on May 9-10, Barry may have transferred cadaverine to it - it was on the seat).

Using a combination of factors to indicate death in no body cases is a precedent long respected in CO (and other) courts. It's not just pings. It's total cessation of communication, she doesn't have her ID with her, she didn't make it to her maintenance chemotherapy (after religiously attending for over a year), she has contacted no friends, she missed an important wedding, she hasn't contacted JL, and I think we'll see no money has been taken out of any of her accounts. Juries have found many a murderer guilty using even half of that. It's actually an interesting thing to look up (I'm not one of those who remembers all the case names - but others here do).

Why do you think absence of cell pings is what is being used to establish that she's dead? Why not at least include phone calls as well?

While we don't know their cash story - LE does. And it's probably in the discovery evidence by now. The AA was written in haste, the evidence is submitted in an ongoing fashion (and the Judge can look at all of it, if he is so inclined - and I bet he is).

So, if we find out at trial that there was cadaverine on the seat of Barry's Bobcat, that the SIM in the Bobcat doesn't detect whether Bobcat was turned on and movement of the Bobcat needs to be a certain distance before it's retained in memory - in short, if a Bobcat expert says all that, you don't think that will be convincing?

Suzanne mentions being wrestled and being pinned down two times. Barry says he "blocked her" with his body (but not his hands -if you don't think that's DV, that's fine - but many people do). There's the financial control (which is part of a pattern of DV - most experts would say that controlling behavior is DV - you may think it's just beatings, but that's not what most juries think, thankfully).

Would you help me out, though, by explaining what kind of violence would need to take place for you to think there was a prior history? We have a prior history of fighting (a lot, enough to scare the daughter), and I'll agree that fighting is not DV. But blocking someone with one's body (especially if the person is small and the blocker is linebacker sized) is DV. I know this because I do DV training for LE and we include slides of this behavior. ANY blocking of a person's movement is DV (grabbing an arm, blocking a door, putting an arm across a door and leaning against the frame so that the person has to contort themselves and be vulnerable while passing, hair pulling, scratching, etc). Barry won't take the stand, so he can't claim self defense (and who would buy that?)

Where I live, keeping a loaded weapon inside the house is considered threshold domestic violence if it's within reach of the offender, even if they don't go for it, it's just lying around. Most DV cases don't come to murder - or to trial, but I'm truly curious whether people here think Barry's admitted behavior (body blocking her) or Suzanne's own words (wrestling away, being pinned down on the bed) are not DV?

I really like your posts and I always have to stop and think which is a good thing. But I think the problem will be that people can say over and over what constitutes domestic violence or harassment but each person on that jury will frame their decision on their beliefs...you just can't get around that. Every relationship is different and every marriage is different. Every spouse is different and the dynamics are such that what works for one couple may not work for a different couple and those experiences come into the jury box like it or not. I would bet money someone will say there was no abuse...just a disintegrating marriage. The one good thing is that anyone who has a workplace job has gone through training year after year recently on what constitutes these sorts of things if not domestic violence for sure harassment, intimidation etc so awareness has increased greatly.

Plus there are plenty of people (perhaps those that get seated) who would be thrilled with a working spouse if they are a SAHM or SAHD who gets handled $400 a week (or so Barry claims). It isn't alot of money in and of itself, but if the spouse isn't paying the bills out of it or paying for their vehicle or other high ticket expense, it is very nice walking around money so I think there is a problem with expressing financial control as DV in this case. Barry also claims (I recall) he told Suzanne he would pay her back the $400,000+ that she inherited and he did pay Gene back and I think it was stated that he paid him back "early". The people he sold business to had a beef, but that I doubt will come in because it verges on character testimony plus "buyer beware". They struck a deal...so being angry about it after the fact isn't criminal and has nothing to do with Suzanne. If anything it does speak to Barry's ability to make money which has never been disputed and "sell it" when he has to.

I think the daughters comments about advising her mom to divorce and get a restraining order is powerful but I'm not thinking prosecution can win the enhancement on the sentences (if Barry is found guilty) and I'm of the opinion that neither of the daughters will be called as witnesses. Especially one that was maybe 16 or 17 when she said that - what does a young woman that age know about restraining orders except what they see on TV or hear through social media and the grapevine. I don't think and I'm of the opinion the prosecution wants to give the defense a chance to cross examine them.
 
What happens if, en route to Denver, Barry sees a herd of elk?

Or a chipmunk?

Squirrel!

How many people think Barry is capable of driving to Denver without sidetrack?

I don't.

JMO
bbm
Ita.
Or a "side kick" ?
I have no idea whom that would be if that is indeed the case, but I have several ideas in mind.
Imo.
 
Let's play Connect the Dots:
  • Unknown 2nd device first used on 11/30/2019. (pg. 44)
  • “The last travel I have for (SM) returning from San Jose, Mexico on 12/02/2019.” (pg. 45)
  • 91 associations to Barry’s iphone between 11/30/2019 – 5/12/2020 (pg. 44)
  • 0 associations to Barry’s iphone after 5/12/2020 –all the way up to the time of arrest a year later (pg. 44)
Seems to me that Barry bought a burner phone while in Mexico and used it to plan his wife’s murder.
Yes! And on page 123 that DS deleted messages from bm possibly a second number, this is really telling.
 

This is one of the creepiest things i have seen in a long time! I can not believe the difference, it dose not look like the same man, he looks like a ghoul, soulless eyes with a creepy smile, Also the girls walking out with him arm in arm with the same creepy smiles looks bizarre and staged. It seems like how they are perceived by others is very important to them.
 
He really does obsess on alcohol/drugs.

I severely doubt this slight 110 pound gym-going, cancer-surviving gal really partook in much.

Anyone else notice in the AA how much exaggeration and hyperbole Barry uses? Disturbing.

It has been said he doesn't drink....but....sometimes people who have strongly held beliefs about drinking and drugs are incredibly intolerant right or wrong. If Suzanne was "cutting loose" even in a manner most of us would shrug our shoulders about it would just heap more onto the marital discord pile. I don't think anyone in any kind of jury would not believe their marriage was on the rocks. Even the judge probably felt like he was in divorce court at the prelim. They seem to have kept their marriage problems pretty close to home so probably not that many friends and acquaintances knew but I don't think they need hours upon hours to validate that there marriage was broken.
 
This is one of the creepiest things i have seen in a long time! I can not believe the difference, it dose not look like the same man, he looks like a ghoul, soulless eyes with a creepy smile, Also the girls walking out with him arm in arm with the same creepy smiles looks bizarre and staged. It seems like how they are perceived by others is very important to them.

I keep seeing Drew Peterson.
 
I get what you're saying, it's an excellent succinct comment. My mind just can't progress to convicting someone to life+ (156 years) in prison when you have no body, no blood, no cadaverine, no eyewitness, no weapon, no smoking gun, no documented history of DV. Honestly it seems the determination of Suzanne's death was no cell phone pings/hits, after a certain time. We don't know their money story/ cash story, a million could be gone, whos' to say?
I get your point of view, too, and I respect it. I should have completed my thought by specifying that folks who believe as you do will not be allowed on the jury, because they honestly cannot follow the judge's instruction on the law.
 
Ye
He really does obsess on alcohol/drugs.

I severely doubt this slight 110 pound gym-going, cancer-surviving gal really partook in much.

Anyone else notice in the AA how much exaggeration and hyperbole Barry uses? Disturbing.
Yep. One minute she’s drunk. Next minute she’s sober and they had a great night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
185
Guests online
1,622
Total visitors
1,807

Forum statistics

Threads
590,070
Messages
17,929,688
Members
228,055
Latest member
vconners
Back
Top