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

Status
Not open for further replies.
There was one moment in the video where the girl on the left looked EXACTLY like Suzanne, that creeped me out. Are they really that brainwashed/in denial that their dad is innocent? I feel for them as well, i really wonder if the smiles are genuine or they are doing it because that don't want to disappoint barry. Who's idea was it to walk out like that too?
I noticed MM2's close resemblance to her mother in this video, too. Quite startling! Wonder if BM sees Suzanne when he looks at his daughter?

I felt like MM1's expression was of a young person with the weight of the world on her shoulders. Tragic. Her life now should be focused on her own goals and happiness not responsibility for running interference for a murderer.

MOO
 
Not saying I disagree nyvictoria. That is why I said "documented" history, thinking LE. I'm thinking a jury is going to expect something in that regard when you're talking DV. I do get the difference, I've been here long enough to know.

There’s so much documented evidence of DV I don’t see how a reasonable person could see it any other way. IMO SM felt BM was spying on her this is proven by the AA page 13 “knew I was looking at phone in bonus” LE asked bm about this and SM felt he was spying on her! When SM was with her best friend they caught him spying on them! Used emotional manipulation such as suicide to get his way. Threatened her with money, range rovers etc, medical care, chased her around a resort on vacation, used her anti depressant against her as an excuse for her sticking up for herself and setting boundaries, need I go on!?
 
Pg 64: Barry said, "I'm telling ya, I had no idea of this [SM's infidelity] until today. But, looking at everything right now, things are making a little more sense to me from God's point of view because I would never understand why God would take away my wife after I fought two battles of cancer with her, had two miracle babies that we shouldn't have had, and had a wonderful life together."

Questions:
  1. Were BM and Suzanne an item during SM's first bought with cancer? What was BM's involvement in helping her fight that first cancer battle?
  2. Did BM really fight the second cancer battle with her?
  3. Did he marry Suzanne thinking they could not/would not have children? (Snarky comment: Being the self-avowed cheapskate he is, perhaps he was thinking of all the money he could save on contraceptives--or if an NFP advocate, lack of self-restraint that would require--not to mention the chemical-free sex.)
  4. Did he even want children?
  5. If BM believes in a vengeful god who smites the evil doer, is he concerned for his own welfare? Or does he see himself as an agent for his lord, doing the smiting for him. Or, mindful that "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the Ten Commandments (but ignoring "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery" are there, too), did he leave SM alive somewhere, letting her survival be a miracle of fate?
Obviously, not all of these questions relate to the murder one charge, but I'm trying to wrap my head around his understanding of his role as husband and father.
Regarding item 1., IIRC one of the early interviews with her sister went into some detail about SM's 1st diagnosis and treatment, stating that BM took care of her then (it was before they married). I will look for the video.

As far as understanding Barry? Even a highly skilled forensic psychologist would be left shaking their head! His God complex is all over the place! I really believe he had convinced himself long ago that what the Bible says about marriage only revolves around a husband being the ultimate arbiter in the home, rather than a husband loving his wife "as Christ loved the church" - being willing to sacrifice his life for her welfare.

Agent Grusing was quite perceptive in his questioning, I thought. Instead of ignoring BM's spiritual "meaning" ramblings as psychobabble, Grusing probes to get Barry's underlying meaning in the record. Quite successfully, I think.

ETA: I love the way BM calls Grusing "Jonny" - he seems to think he can outsmart a highly skilled FBI agent by running a confidence game, even whining to Grusing when he is arrested about "trusting" him. This stupidity on Barry's part will ultimately be his undoing. His lawyers must sometimes look at each other in astonishment that their client ran his mouth SO MUCH.

JMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I noticed MM2's close resemblance to her mother in this video, too. Quite startling! Wonder if BM sees Suzanne when he looks at his daughter?

I felt like MM1's expression was of a young person with the weight of the world on her shoulders. Tragic. Her life now should be focused on her own goals and happiness not responsibility for running interference for a murderer.

MOO
I don't get the impression either of them are "running interference" more that they are protecting each other (all the existing family) from media and looky loos. But clearly MM2 hates it the most. I would be more like MM2...get out of my face and leave us alone.
 
There’s so much documented evidence of DV I don’t see how a reasonable person could see it any other way. IMO SM felt BM was spying on her this is proven by the AA page 13 “knew I was looking at phone in bonus” LE asked bm about this and SM felt he was spying on her! When SM was with her best friend they caught him spying on them! Used emotional manipulation such as suicide to get his way. Threatened her with money, range rovers etc, medical care, chased her around a resort on vacation, used her anti depressant against her as an excuse for her sticking up for herself and setting boundaries, need I go on!?
That was my point earlier...each person is going to frame what constitutes DV differently. Most people would agree that physical violence is DV but I don't think every person is going to think everything is DV and the jury isn't going to determine it anyway I think. Suzanne was spying on Barry and Barry was spying on Suzanne...that is documented so which of the two was committing DV at that point? I could on, but I'm just saying that not everyone is going to agree one hundred percent on this in my opinion. But it is interesting to read opinions here. Here's a good primer from Colorado and of importance is to note is that it very carefully and several times points out that not all constitutes "criminal abuse". And that "added" enhancer in this case is determined at the end of trial as part of sentencing in this case and determined by the judge I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. From the link: Domestic Violence & Domestic Abuse | Legal Information Network of Colorado

Colorado’s Domestic Violence laws cover violence, attempted violence, threats of violence, stalking, harassment, revenge, or coercion. Coercion means forcing, threatening, or intimidating someone into doing something they do not want to do. Coercion also means stopping someone from doing something they have a right to do.

Domestic Violence may be added to the charge for another crime. It is not a charge by itself. For example, if a man hits someone, he might be charged with misdemeanor assault. If he hits his wife, he might be charged with a misdemeanor assault as an act of Domestic Violence. Almost always, the prosecutor must charge as an act of Domestic Violence if the violence includes intimate partners.
 
That was my point earlier...each person is going to frame what constitutes DV differently. Most people would agree that physical violence is DV but I don't think every person is going to think everything is DV and the jury isn't going to determine it anyway I think. Suzanne was spying on Barry and Barry was spying on Suzanne...that is documented so which of the two was committing DV at that point? I could on, but I'm just saying that not everyone is going to agree one hundred percent on this in my opinion. But it is interesting to read opinions here. Here's a good primer from Colorado and of importance is to note is that it very carefully and several times points out that not all constitutes "criminal abuse". And that "added" enhancer in this case is determined at the end of trial as part of sentencing in this case and determined by the judge I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. From the link: Domestic Violence & Domestic Abuse | Legal Information Network of Colorado

Colorado’s Domestic Violence laws cover violence, attempted violence, threats of violence, stalking, harassment, revenge, or coercion. Coercion means forcing, threatening, or intimidating someone into doing something they do not want to do. Coercion also means stopping someone from doing something they have a right to do.

Domestic Violence may be added to the charge for another crime. It is not a charge by itself. For example, if a man hits someone, he might be charged with misdemeanor assault. If he hits his wife, he might be charged with a misdemeanor assault as an act of Domestic Violence. Almost always, the prosecutor must charge as an act of Domestic Violence if the violence includes intimate partners.

I value your opinion but there’s a lot of evidence that SM perceived these behaviors as frightening, intimidating. It’s not the stressor itself it’s the persons reaction to the stressor or stressors. In this case there is evidence that she did not feel safe with him. Everything I’ve seen is dv on his part my opinion only though.
 
That was my point earlier...each person is going to frame what constitutes DV differently. Most people would agree that physical violence is DV but I don't think every person is going to think everything is DV and the jury isn't going to determine it anyway I think. Suzanne was spying on Barry and Barry was spying on Suzanne...that is documented so which of the two was committing DV at that point? I could on, but I'm just saying that not everyone is going to agree one hundred percent on this in my opinion. But it is interesting to read opinions here. Here's a good primer from Colorado and of importance is to note is that it very carefully and several times points out that not all constitutes "criminal abuse". And that "added" enhancer in this case is determined at the end of trial as part of sentencing in this case and determined by the judge I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. From the link: Domestic Violence & Domestic Abuse | Legal Information Network of Colorado

Colorado’s Domestic Violence laws cover violence, attempted violence, threats of violence, stalking, harassment, revenge, or coercion. Coercion means forcing, threatening, or intimidating someone into doing something they do not want to do. Coercion also means stopping someone from doing something they have a right to do.

Domestic Violence may be added to the charge for another crime. It is not a charge by itself. For example, if a man hits someone, he might be charged with misdemeanor assault. If he hits his wife, he might be charged with a misdemeanor assault as an act of Domestic Violence. Almost always, the prosecutor must charge as an act of Domestic Violence if the violence includes intimate partners.
BBM
Nobody believes that Suzanne was a domestic abuser. That’s a bad faith argument.

Since one of these two people is dead and one is still alive, I’m confident that the jurors will be able to accurately identify the abuser in this situation.
 
That was my point earlier...each person is going to frame what constitutes DV differently. Most people would agree that physical violence is DV but I don't think every person is going to think everything is DV and the jury isn't going to determine it anyway I think. Suzanne was spying on Barry and Barry was spying on Suzanne...that is documented so which of the two was committing DV at that point? I could on, but I'm just saying that not everyone is going to agree one hundred percent on this in my opinion. But it is interesting to read opinions here. Here's a good primer from Colorado and of importance is to note is that it very carefully and several times points out that not all constitutes "criminal abuse". And that "added" enhancer in this case is determined at the end of trial as part of sentencing in this case and determined by the judge I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. From the link: Domestic Violence & Domestic Abuse | Legal Information Network of Colorado

Colorado’s Domestic Violence laws cover violence, attempted violence, threats of violence, stalking, harassment, revenge, or coercion. Coercion means forcing, threatening, or intimidating someone into doing something they do not want to do. Coercion also means stopping someone from doing something they have a right to do.

Domestic Violence may be added to the charge for another crime. It is not a charge by itself. For example, if a man hits someone, he might be charged with misdemeanor assault. If he hits his wife, he might be charged with a misdemeanor assault as an act of Domestic Violence. Almost always, the prosecutor must charge as an act of Domestic Violence if the violence includes intimate partners.
The "enhancement" of the sentence for DV initially involves sentencing to a treatment program and relinquishment of weapons. Repeat offenders get hammered, but BM doesn't have the requisite criminal history. Here's the essential section of the statute (BBM):

"Colorado Revised Statutes, § 18-6-801. Domestic violence - sentencing

(1) (a) In addition to any sentence that is imposed upon a person for violation of any criminal law under this title, any person who is convicted of any crime, the underlying factual basis of which has been found by the court on the record to include an act of domestic violence, as defined in section 18-6-800.3 (1), or any crime against property, whether or not such crime is a felony, when such crime is used as a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge directed against a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship shall be ordered to complete a treatment program and a treatment evaluation that conform with the standards adopted by the domestic violence offender management board as required by section 16-11.8-103 (4), C.R.S. If an intake evaluation conducted by an approved treatment program provider discloses that sentencing to a treatment program would be inappropriate, the person shall be referred back to the court for alternative disposition.

(b) The court may order a treatment evaluation to be conducted prior to sentencing if a treatment evaluation would assist the court in determining an appropriate sentence. The person ordered to undergo such evaluation shall be required to pay the cost of the treatment evaluation. If such treatment evaluation recommends treatment, and if the court so finds, the person shall be ordered to complete a treatment program that conforms with the standards adopted by the domestic violence offender management board as required by section 16-11.8-103 (4), C.R.S.

(c) Nothing in this subsection (1) shall preclude the court from ordering domestic violence treatment in any appropriate case.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to persons sentenced to the department of corrections.

(3) A person charged with the commission of a crime, the underlying factual basis of which includes an act of domestic violence as defined in section 18-6-800.3 (1), shall not be entitled to plead guilty or plead nolo contendere to an offense which does not include the domestic violence designation required in section 16-21-103, C.R.S., unless the prosecuting attorney makes a good faith representation on the record that such attorney would not be able to establish a prima facie case that the person and the alleged victim were currently or formerly involved in an intimate relationship if the defendant were brought to trial on the original domestic violence offense and upon such a finding by the court. The prosecuting attorney's record and the court's findings shall specify the relationship in the alleged domestic violence case which the prosecuting attorney is not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and the reasons therefor. No court shall accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to an offense which does not include the domestic violence designation required in section 16-21-103, C.R.S., when the facts of the case indicate that the underlying factual basis includes an act of domestic violence as defined in section 18-6-800.3 (1) unless there is a good faith representation by the prosecuting attorney that he or she would be unable to establish a prima facie case if the defendant were brought to trial on the original offense.

(4) No person accused or convicted of a crime, the underlying factual basis of which has been found by the court on the record to include an act of domestic violence, as defined in section 18-6-800.3 (1), shall be eligible for home detention in the home of the victim pursuant to section 18-1.3-105 or 18-1.3-106. Nothing in this subsection (4) is intended to prohibit a court from ordering a deferred sentence for a person accused or convicted of a crime, the underlying factual basis of which has been found by the court on the record to include an act of domestic violence, as defined in section 18-6-800.3 (1).

(5) Before granting probation, the court shall consider the safety of the victim and the victim's children if probation is granted.

(6) Nothing in this section shall preclude the ability of a municipality to enact concurrent ordinances.

(7) (a) Any misdemeanor offense that includes an act of domestic violence is a class 5 felony if the defendant at the time of sentencing has been previously convicted of three or more prior offenses that included an act of domestic violence and that were separately brought and tried and arising out of separate criminal episodes.

(b) The prior convictions must be set forth in apt words in the indictment or information. For the purposes of this section, "conviction" includes any federal, state, or municipal conviction for a felony, misdemeanor, or municipal ordinance violation.

(c) Trials in cases alleging that the defendant is an habitual domestic violence offender pursuant to this subsection (7) must be conducted in accordance with the rules of criminal procedure for felonies. The trier of fact shall determine whether an offense charged includes an act of domestic violence.

(d) Following a conviction for an offense which underlying factual basis includes an act of domestic violence:

(I) If any prior conviction included a determination by a jury or was admitted by the defendant that the offense included an act of domestic violence, the court shall proceed to sentencing without further findings as to that prior conviction by the jury or by the court, if no jury trial is had;

(II) For any prior conviction in which the factual basis was found by the court to include an act of domestic violence, but did not include a finding of domestic violence by a jury or that was not admitted by the defendant, the trial court shall proceed to a sentencing stage of the proceedings. The prosecution shall present evidence to the trier of fact that the prior conviction included an act of domestic violence. The prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

(III) At the sentencing stage, the following applies:

(A) A finding of domestic violence made by a court at the time of the prior conviction constitutes prima facie evidence that the crime involved domestic violence;

(B) Evidence of the prior conviction is admissible through the use of certified documents under seal, or the court may take judicial notice of a prior conviction;

(C) Evidence admitted in the guilt stage of the trial, including testimony of the defendant and other acts admitted pursuant to section 18-6-801.5, may be considered by the finder of fact.

(8) (a) In addition to any sentence that is imposed upon a defendant for violation of any criminal law under this title, if a defendant is convicted of any crime, the underlying factual basis of which is found by the court on the record to be a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 921 (a) (33), or that is punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year and includes an act of domestic violence, as defined in section 18-6-800.3 (1), the court:

(I) Shall order the defendant to:

(A) Refrain from possessing or purchasing any firearm or ammunition for the duration of the order; and


(B) Relinquish any firearm or ammunition in the defendant's immediate possession or control or subject to the defendant's immediate possession or control; and

(II) May require that before the defendant is released from custody on bond, the defendant shall relinquish, for the duration of the order, any firearm or ammunition in the defendant's immediate possession or control or subject to the defendant's immediate possession or control."
 
There’s so much documented evidence of DV I don’t see how a reasonable person could see it any other way. IMO SM felt BM was spying on her this is proven by the AA page 13 “knew I was looking at phone in bonus” LE asked bm about this and SM felt he was spying on her! When SM was with her best friend they caught him spying on them! Used emotional manipulation such as suicide to get his way. Threatened her with money, range rovers etc, medical care, chased her around a resort on vacation, used her anti depressant against her as an excuse for her sticking up for herself and setting boundaries, need I go on!?

Think of this as a juror, we know a much longer history, they won't. First off they'll hear of her affair, guarantee that...SM thought he was spying on her ..who bought the spypen? Chased her around a resort on vacation, yes, when she was speaking to her lover on her cell phone, he obviously knew something was up....think of it as juror. As someone familiar with DV you use the word "threatened" her with money, range rovers...the average juror who doesn't know DV isn't going to see that questioning money as a threat IMO. How tied down was she? In a year and half ...6-8 trips just see her lover, no job out side the home and how many more trips in that year to see family and friends? How do they know it was just the last year and a half could been a life time of trips. You have the 20th anniversary picture out there as recently as 2014, Suzanne says she's looking for 20 more years with him...
 
@CCGray123 Thanks for posting...I didn't have time to go look up statute of how it exactly worked at sentencing. I'm sure the judge, who so far as used good judgement, will act...I'm not even sure that the enhancer is still part of the charges...I think it is. I think all the charges and the enhancer are still passing through to trial and the only thing that happened was the prosecution didn't meet proof positive presumption great affecting the bond issue.
 
Not in AA - but this from MSM
Prosecutors Outline Barry And Suzanne Morphew's Movements On Days Around Her Disappearance
In September of 2019, Suzanne’s best friend, Shelia Oliver advised Suzanne that she should begin tucking away money to be able to live on her own. At some point, Suzanne set up a secret Green Dot bank account as well as an account with a fund management company, Compass Management. The FBI agent on the stand, Ken Harris, said he didn’t follow up on these accounts.

Questions -
1. Why no follow up? Surely follow up is needed for no proof of life?
2. How much money was in these accounts?

Other musings - IF BM gave SM $400 weekly 'walking around' money - thats quite a sizeable amount to put away into safe keeping?[/QUOTE
He didn’t follow up, but I’m quite sure an FBI financial analyst did.
 
Think of this as a juror, we know a much longer history, they won't. First off they'll hear of her affair, guarantee that...SM thought he was spying on her ..who bought the spypen? Chased her around a resort on vacation, yes, when she was speaking to her lover on her cell phone, he obviously knew something was up....think of it as juror. As someone familiar with DV you use the word "threatened" her with money, range rovers...the average juror who doesn't know DV isn't going to see that questioning money as a threat IMO. How tied down was she? In a year and half ...6-8 trips just see her lover, no job out side the home and how many more trips in that year to see family and friends? How do they know it was just the last year and a half could been a life time of trips. You have the 20th anniversary picture out there as recently as 2014, Suzanne says she's looking for 20 more years with him...
The affair with JL is relevant only as evidence supporting the proposition that SM was serious when she said she was "done" - like the evidence she was looking for an apartment in town. Do you believe it is relevant for another purpose, e.g. that the defense will argue jurors should exonerate BM because his wife was unfaithful? Will a religious jury in effect see this as an "honor killing" and let him go? If so, I respectfully disagree.
 
The affair with JL is relevant only as evidence supporting the proposition that SM was serious when she said she was "done" - like the evidence she was looking for an apartment in town. Do you believe it is relevant for another purpose, e.g. that the defense will argue jurors should exonerate BM because his wife was unfaithful? Will a religious jury in effect see this as an "honor killing" and let him go? If so, I respectfully disagree.

I think the point is that a typical juror, not familiar with emotional control in DV, will see the affair, travel, etc., as proof that she wasn't "controlled" to the point of really wanting to leave. A juror may think "if I had that kind of life, I wasn't going anywhere." It's subtle, but the defense argument may be that Barry felt the same way - that he didn't think she was leaving, hence no motive.

I actually think he was terrified she would leave, for whatever reason, and take half the money. As the one guy said, in AA, "don't get in between Barry and his money."
 
@CCGray123 Thanks for posting...I didn't have time to go look up statute of how it exactly worked at sentencing. I'm sure the judge, who so far as used good judgement, will act...I'm not even sure that the enhancer is still part of the charges...I think it is. I think all the charges and the enhancer are still passing through to trial and the only thing that happened was the prosecution didn't meet proof positive presumption great affecting the bond issue.
and @CGray123 - IF BM is found guilty of murder 1, is that an act of DV in itself and hence the enhancement? or is just prior to?
 
The affair with JL is relevant only as evidence supporting the proposition that SM was serious when she said she was "done" - like the evidence she was looking for an apartment in town. Do you believe it is relevant for another purpose, e.g. that the defense will argue jurors should exonerate BM because his wife was unfaithful? Will a religious jury in effect see this as an "honor killing" and let him go? If so, I respectfully disagree.
Not saying that at all. No excuse for murder. Strictly speaking to what people see as DV. If it was consistent there wouldn't be seminars educating people as to what it is. I'm not speaking on any level of 'exonerating BM, that's your interpretation.
 
Well I read the entire AA the other night and kind of skimmed some parts because it’s SO lengthy. Here I am at 2:00 a.m. poring over it slowly now, focusing on the interviews with BM and FBI Special Agents.
Whew. I have so much to say but want to make some notes and reference page numbers before I post my thoughts. Also get some sleep first, too lol.
But I just had to share this from Page 97.
They are asking BM about the list that SM had on her phone ( the 50 things they call “grievances “ against Barry) and what he thinks she means.
He claims that SM accused him of having cameras in the EYES of the deer heads in their house to spy on her ! Omg.
I have no idea if he would actually do such a thing ( wouldn’t put it past him at this point) or even if she actually said or thought that. But it makes me so sad to think about how isolated she was and that he could make her that paranoid if true.
Breaks my heart that she couldn’t get out in time.
I pray the Prosecution can show a Jury how this guy just wasn’t going to let her go.

I really think that was Barry trying to make Suzanne look unstable, just as he kept insisting that she was a drunk and an addict. He feels fully justified in killing her, but he needs to give other people justifications. He also needs to degrade her character so she can't take him down from whatever hole he jammed her into. I believe (someone else may remember where) that it was said that there was a camera in the garage but it was one of the ones that had been disabled and SMs DNA was found on it. He was spying on her, provided that the time stamps function as pauses in movement, at least one of his game cameras was in a position to watch both porches.
 
Not saying that at all. No excuse for murder. Strictly speaking to what people see as DV. If it was consistent there wouldn't be seminars educating people as to what it is. I'm not speaking on any level of 'exonerating BM, that's your interpretation.
Agreed.
Based on what we've seen so far from this case and the accompanying media clips ... there is something wrong in the Morphew family.
Some kind of gaslighting and understated control.
It's sad and imo- chilling !
Abuse can certainly be without visible marks.

It can be as simple as something like; "Your mom didn't love us.".
Or, "Do as I say and smile for the walk to the car after I am released on bond or you'll be cut off , and no more money for you for school or anything else, ever.".
That is also abuse.
Why did the daughters have to put on a show for the public ?

His mom (?) was walking behind them --why couldn't she have walked out with Barry ?
Or his sisters ?
Disgraceful behavior of the Morphew mother and siblings.
Yes -- the daughters are both adults, and have made their choice to fully support Barry regardless, but I still find it insensitive.
MOO.
 
Last edited:
Ye

Yep. One minute she’s drunk. Next minute she’s sober and they had a great night.

I feel like any time spent with Barry probably sobers you up pretty quickly. Local wildlife especially would be teetotal down to the last chipmunk, I expect.

Reading the AA has been maddening and (yep) sobering also. It strikes me that this may have to be a careful detailed roadmap prosecution case vs the simpler smoking gun -- there are so many dots too connect, and so few convincing explanations, that many a reasonable person is likely to conclude that a) SM is deceased and b) that Barry was the prime mover behind her passing. Hard to pick holes in every one of those facts without repeating oneself or seeming increasingly disingenuous for the D team, IMO.
 
Think of this as a juror, we know a much longer history, they won't. First off they'll hear of her affair, guarantee that...SM thought he was spying on her ..who bought the spypen? Chased her around a resort on vacation, yes, when she was speaking to her lover on her cell phone, he obviously knew something was up....think of it as juror. As someone familiar with DV you use the word "threatened" her with money, range rovers...the average juror who doesn't know DV isn't going to see that questioning money as a threat IMO. How tied down was she? In a year and half ...6-8 trips just see her lover, no job out side the home and how many more trips in that year to see family and friends? How do they know it was just the last year and a half could been a life time of trips. You have the 20th anniversary picture out there as recently as 2014, Suzanne says she's looking for 20 more years with him...
Your statement sounds like your rationalizing dv saying he only chased her around the resort because he caught her on the phone no matter the reason it’s DV it’s not okay. I also disagree that she had no job she was a stay at home mother she had the hardest job in the world. I think we just have different perspectives which is okay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
3,515
Total visitors
3,603

Forum statistics

Threads
591,530
Messages
17,953,996
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top