Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #85

[Momofthreeboys]

What part of the business in question closes at 2pm on Saturday's do you think the jury is going to have an issue with?

The owners. If you ever lived in a small town owners do all kinds of things outside their “hours” and especially during Covid when business owners were incredibly accommodating about all kinds of things. The jurors will decide if the owners were befuddled about when they were at their store. Prosecutors say they weren’t there, they say they were…jury decides.

 

[Volgal]

Do we absolutely positively know that it’s the same DNA on the sheets, glove box, bike, helmet etc . . . In my understanding there were several different unknown DNAs?

 

[sk716]

Do we absolutely positively know that it’s the same DNA on the sheets, glove box, bike, helmet etc . . . In my understanding there were several different unknown DNAs?

There are no DNA matches to anyone outside of the house. There are are quite literally thousands of bad partial matches that mean absolutely nothing. By bad I mean there is so little matching that no one would ever consider any of those thousands of distant partial matches as an actual suspect especially since they are all over the country.

The DNA in this case means nothing. It's smoke and mirrors.

ETA: The DNA is so pointless that the prosecution isn't even trying to use Barry's confirmed DNA on the bike.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

There are no DNA matches to anyone outside of the house. There are are quite literally thousands of bad partial matches that mean absolutely nothing. By bad I mean there is so little matching that no one would ever consider any of those thousands of distant partial matches as an actual suspect especially since they are all over the country.

The DNA in this case means nothing. It's smoke and mirrors.

ETA: The DNA is so pointless that the prosecution isn't even trying to use Barry's confirmed DNA on the bike.

But isn’t that the point of the letter of intent? To say the prosecution withheld knowledge about the DNA and downplayed its importance. So we don’t have that info from the AA or the preliminary and what we know may no longer be accurate. If it is important we will know sooner or later.

 

[O.Incandenza]

Do we absolutely positively know that it’s the same DNA on the sheets, glove box, bike, helmet etc . . . In my understanding there were several different unknown DNAs?

We definitely don't know that for sure, though that seems to be what the new article is saying: "Attorneys for Morphew say that investigators failed to mention that they knew the name of the man’s DNA that was allegedly found on Suzanne’s bike, helmet, sheets in the dryer, one of the bedrooms and in Suzanne’s car."

From what was said at the PH, the dna on the range rover glove box was from a different donor than the other unknown dna on the bike, sheets, etc. If that's not true and they are from the same person (or at least consistent with being the same person), then that's a big deal. And if the prosecution knew that and concealed it, it's also a big deal.

However, I sort of doubt that's the case. I'd guess it's more likely just sloppy reporting about the letter. I wish they would have just posted the full letter instead of summarizing it.

 

[Murphy1950]

To date, as I see it, LE has not uncovered anything exculpatory! Certain areas of all of our homes and garages surely contain DNA, in various states, we didn't put there! From invited guests to service providers ...... Six degrees of separation, just less fun."

It's a nonstarter if LE side-eyed the most compelling partial matches and determined those individuals were as likely to be involved as the myriad individuals who were also partial matches! Which is... they aren't.

"while a glove compartment bandit accosted Suzanne and disappeared her,"

Who knows how many partial hits they would've gotten if we all submitted DNA!

No one IMO has done more to discredit Barry than Barry himself. JMO

RSABBM
on the exact same page @Megnut " while a glove compartment bandit accosted Suzanne and disappeared her"

A bandit who guessed the garage code, rifled the glove box but left her wallet , id’s and money.

Per the AA, "Jeanne, who has the access codes..."


Honestly, there could never be any end to this if the standard all partial DNA to be checked. Everybody’s house and vehicles have to be filled with partial DNA. I can’t imagine how many people have been in my house and touched something in the past 5 years. Heck I’ve had friends/neighbors and family for open houses on various holidays for years, and some bought a guest.

Not to exclude various trade people, carpet installers, remodelers, cleaners, flower deliveries, it's endless.

To boot, Suzanne’s vehicle is 2015, most likely came out in the Fall of 2014. And we don’t know if they were original owners. It could have been originally sold from a dealership in Arizona. Are the investigators supposed to run every DNA partial found from no matter where it’s found? How about on the mailbox…The car was not a crime scene, end of story. Had there been reason to think Suzanne was in her car that morning, that would be different and require a closer look. A video of a stranger hanging around Puma Path that day would be a gamechanger in the evidence up for consideration, if such existed.

It's not beyond any doubt, the standard is beyond any reasonable doubt. Along those same guidelines Partial DNA/finger prints are all over the place. The fact that they found partial DNA doesn’t make it exculpatory evidence for Barry or anyone else. How does the fact, SAY IT IS A FACT , that a former offender had access to Suzanne’s car to maybe change a tire, mean Barry’s innocent? And DNA certainly doesn’t make it a crime scene.

The closest to a crime scene we have is where the bike was found, not the garage. Secondly the master bedroom (unfired bullet and damaged door) If the defense would like to suggest the garage was an abduction scene, why did the abductor need to stage a bike?

It only makes sense to work with the evidence you recover leads/tips you receive. GPS, the bike, the helmet, there were no dog scent hits, cell phone records, any private CCTV video of Barry, witness conversations, CDOT video of Barry’s vehicle. Barry interviews/responses etc. are legitimate sources of evidence to pursue and verify.

I can only hope and pray the DA’s office is able to lay this out clearly and end this nonsense and there is Justice for Suzanne.

Do we absolutely positively know that it’s the same DNA on the sheets, glove box, bike, helmet etc . . . In my understanding there were several different unknown DNAs?

It is not the same DNA.

 

[DeDee]

Who knows how to obtain the 10 page letter of intent lawsuit Barry may file?

I can't post data without it. It makes for interesting reading and may answer our questions about DA JLs departure, etal.


(KKTV) - 11 News has obtained a letter of intent to sue attorneys and investigators in the Barry Morphew case.

The letter sites a false arrest and defamation among other things. <>To date, the remains of Suzanne Morphew have not been located but her bicycle was.

A family friend of Morphew sent 11 News Reporter Ashley Franco the documents.

Lawyers for Barry Morphew plan to sue prosecutors and investigators tied to the case of Suzanne Morphew

 

[fcavanaugh]

This recent development of BM’s notice of intent to sue the investigators and DA for defamation and false arrest is imo, more diversion, deflection, misdirection and posturing- poor BM always the victim (Not!). And I’d go further and say also trying to influence future jury pool.

The DNA deposited in certain places could have been deposited at anytime by anyone that previously lived in, visited or that had done repairs to or installed items in the home. And as previously discussed, the partial DNA on the glovebox could have been transferred/deposited any number of ways also i.e., mechanic, car detailer, etc. And the unknown DNA on the bike could’ve been transferred/deposited there by person at bike shop that sold the bike to SM, bike mechanic, etc, etc.

Having said that, and team BM saying the DNA is “exculpatory”, are they now going to suggest SM was abducted from her vehicle or home and that the abductor decided to also stage a second crime scene by tossing her bike and helmet? Because if they want us to believe she was abducted from her vehicle/home, then we also have to believe the abductor also staged the bike and helmet. Are we really to believe some crazed abductor who knew SM was home alone on Mother’s Day, ambushed her at home or abducted her as she was getting into her vehicle, left her valuables behind (purse, credit cards etc.) and decided to stage a second crime scene tossed the bike, and planted the helmet?……Ludicrous.
It would appear team BM thinks the rest of us are stupid if they want us to believe someone was hiding waiting for Suzanne to enter her vehicle in the driveway or garage, and this person is somehow able to grab/drag a struggling SM, the bike and helmet over to his vehicle that was parked in/near the driveway or garage, or parked further away on the side of road near the bushes he’d been hiding in. Proceed to throw SM, the bike and helmet into his vehicle, drives a bit up the road, stops, gets out of vehicle and tosses bike over embankment. Jumps back in car, drives a little further and tosses helmet out window. Tosses SM phone AND charger into the river and/or disposed somewhere else along the route. That this person goes to all the trouble/takes all these steps including staging a second scene?
In broad daylight? Without anyone seeing or hearing a thing? And this all happened before SM even had a chance to turn on her phone? Please.

Also, no crazed abductor made BM: go to work a day early when not even permitted to work that day. Haul trash with him 2.5 hours away to Broomfield and proceed to make 5 trash dumps at different locations around town. Work a grand total of 11 minutes at jobsite and lie to LE about where he was when he got the emergency call. Forget to bring the necessary tools and materials needed for his workers to complete said job. Not help LE or his BIL Andy Moorman and his army of searchers search for his wife. Not attend his wife’s vigils. Liquidate all assets within weeks of SM going “missing”, without knowing what happened to her and whether she might return (but we know he knew she wasn’t coming back). Tell lie after lie and inconsistent statements to investigators. State “I do not recall” to investigators at least 95 times. On and on. Yeah no. Not only is it laughable it’s patently, absurd.

The bottom line and fact of the matter is that BM’s behaviors, timeline, and digital data on 5/9 and 5/10/20, and Suzanne’s phone going dark within minutes of BM arriving home on 5/9 after which she’s never heard from or seen again, in addition to BM’s sketchy behavior, numerous lies and inconsistent statements after the fact, do not add up to anyone else being responsible for Suzanne’s murder. It makes no sense whatsoever and the two simply cannot be reconciled by anyone using critical thinking, logic, and good ole common sense. Further, noone else but BM had all 3 criteria to commit this crime- the motive, the means and the opportunity.
No one.

The DNA is a non-starter and red herring. There was no crazed abductor, nor did Suzanne go for a bike ride on Mother’s Day 5/10/20 because she wasn’t alive that day. Dead people don’t get ambushed and abducted, use phones, or ride bikes.

Still holding out hope that by some miracle Suzanne’s remains are found prior to trial to help put the final proverbial nail in BM’s coffin. If her remains aren’t found prior to trial, it’s going to take a very skilled prosecutor to methodically lay out and explain the mountain of circumstantial evidence so the jury can connect the dots, to keep the jury focused and not get distracted by E & N grandstanding, distractions, smoke and mirrors. There’s no denying E & N are intelligent, formidable, good at what they do, and the state is definitely going to need to bring their A-Game/Team to go ‘toe-to-toe’ with and shut them down at trial.

Anxiously awaiting for the hearing on 11/9 and to see who gets brought on to the prosecution team to replace JL.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

 

[Murphy1950]

Who knows how to obtain the 10 page letter of intent lawsuit Barry may file?

I can't post data without it. It makes for interesting reading and may answer our questions about DA JLs departure, etal.


(KKTV) - 11 News has obtained a letter of intent to sue attorneys and investigators in the Barry Morphew case.

The letter sites a false arrest and defamation among other things. <>To date, the remains of Suzanne Morphew have not been located but her bicycle was.

A family friend of Morphew sent 11 News Reporter Ashley Franco the documents.

Lawyers for Barry Morphew plan to sue prosecutors and investigators tied to the case of Suzanne Morphew

The letter states...the concern is the glove box...MSM chose to mix it all together. IMO. The letter is widely available on SM, just not MSM sources that I can find. Most of the MSM articles in response to the letter are way off base. Sadly the intent on MSM would be to sensationalize the information, not to be useful to the public, as they chose clearly to confuse things, the information is clearly stated in the letter regardless of how we think it's pertinent, IMO. I find it ironic we can only consider MSM as a bona fide source, but I realize the challenges for admins if we open it up.

 

[Knox]

I honestly feel this is a case where the evidence when presented, will be like a block wall. In the end, the wall will be too strong for his attorney's to topple. The defense can point out the unknown DNA all they want. There are very commonsense reasons for it to be in the car (glovebox). This stunt his attorney's are pulling is an attempt to divert attention away from the only person who had a motive to kill Suzanne. Accusing LE of ignoring evidence that points to someone other than their client, is commonplace when there is really nothing else to use. Any other subterfuges in the arsenal?

 

[marylamby]

This recent development of BM’s notice of intent to sue the investigators and DA for defamation and false arrest is imo, more diversion, deflection, misdirection and posturing- poor BM always the victim (Not!). And I’d go further and say also trying to influence future jury pool.

The DNA deposited in certain places could have been deposited at anytime by anyone that previously lived in, visited or that had done repairs to or installed items in the home. And as previously discussed, the partial DNA on the glovebox could have been transferred/deposited any number of ways also i.e., mechanic, car detailer, etc. And the unknown DNA on the bike could’ve been transferred/deposited there by person at bike shop that sold the bike to SM, bike mechanic, etc, etc.

Having said that, and team BM saying the DNA is “exculpatory”, are they now going to suggest SM was abducted from her vehicle or home and that the abductor decided to also stage a second crime scene by tossing her bike and helmet? Because if they want us to believe she was abducted from her vehicle/home, then we also have to believe the abductor also staged the bike and helmet. Are we really to believe some crazed abductor who knew SM was home alone on Mother’s Day, ambushed her at home or abducted her as she was getting into her vehicle, left her valuables behind (purse, credit cards etc.) and decided to stage a second crime scene tossed the bike, and planted the helmet?……Ludicrous.
It would appear team BM thinks the rest of us are stupid if they want us to believe someone was hiding waiting for Suzanne to enter her vehicle in the driveway or garage, and this person is somehow able to grab/drag a struggling SM, the bike and helmet over to his vehicle that was parked in/near the driveway or garage, or parked further away on the side of road near the bushes he’d been hiding in. Proceed to throw SM, the bike and helmet into his vehicle, drives a bit up the road, stops, gets out of vehicle and tosses bike over embankment. Jumps back in car, drives a little further and tosses helmet out window. Tosses SM phone AND charger into the river and/or disposed somewhere else along the route. That this person goes to all the trouble/takes all these steps including staging a second scene?
In broad daylight? Without anyone seeing or hearing a thing? And this all happened before SM even had a chance to turn on her phone? Please.

Also, no crazed abductor made BM: go to work a day early when not even permitted to work that day. Haul trash with him 2.5 hours away to Broomfield and proceed to make 5 trash dumps at different locations around town. Work a grand total of 11 minutes at jobsite and lie to LE about where he was when he got the emergency call. Forget to bring the necessary tools and materials needed for his workers to complete said job. Not help LE or his BIL Andy Moorman and his army of searchers search for his wife. Not attend his wife’s vigils. Liquidate all assets within weeks of SM going “missing”, without knowing what happened to her and whether she might return (but we know he knew she wasn’t coming back). Tell lie after lie and inconsistent statements to investigators. State “I do not recall” to investigators at least 95 times. On and on. Yeah no. Not only is it laughable it’s patently, absurd.

The bottom line and fact of the matter is that BM’s behaviors, timeline, and digital data on 5/9 and 5/10/20, and Suzanne’s phone going dark within minutes of BM arriving home on 5/9 after which she’s never heard from or seen again, in addition to BM’s sketchy behavior, numerous lies and inconsistent statements after the fact, do not add up to anyone else being responsible for Suzanne’s murder. It makes no sense whatsoever and the two simply cannot be reconciled by anyone using critical thinking, logic, and good ole common sense. Further, noone else but BM had all 3 criteria to commit this crime- the motive, the means and the opportunity.
No one.

The DNA is a non-starter and red herring. There was no crazed abductor, nor did Suzanne go for a bike ride on Mother’s Day 5/10/20 because she wasn’t alive that day. Dead people don’t get ambushed and abducted, use phones, or ride bikes.

Still holding out hope that by some miracle Suzanne’s remains are found prior to trial to help put the final proverbial nail in BM’s coffin. If her remains aren’t found prior to trial, it’s going to take a very skilled prosecutor to methodically lay out and explain the mountain of circumstantial evidence so the jury can connect the dots, to keep the jury focused and not get distracted by E & N grandstanding, distractions, smoke and mirrors. There’s no denying E & N are intelligent, formidable, good at what they do, and the state is definitely going to need to bring their A-Game/Team to go ‘toe-to-toe’ with and shut them down at trial.

Anxiously awaiting for the hearing on 11/9 and to see who gets brought on to the prosecution team to replace JL.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

Five star comment, @fcavanaugh, all of it.
Just to emphasize, "And I’d go further and say also trying to influence future jury pool."
I believe that's the sole reason for the notice of intent. It made the local news and internet.
They know their audience. They're trying for a good offense because they have NO defense.

 

[DeDee]

I've read it in its entirety ....

One reason it may be filed is because the letter of intent, or subsequent lawsuit, behooves Barry in the eyes of Suzanne's children by declaring all investigators were out to get Barry arrested while overlooking possible exculpatory evidence. In fact, the daughter(s) may have instigated this lawsuit.

Jmhoo

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I would not say it is the sole purpose but criminal will precede civil if they ever do file the civil case. What we will hear about is the apparent release of early August discovery at the end of September. That is a no no and JL and the DA know it. If it is exculpatory or not remains to be seen. I personally think it was intentional on the part of the prosecution and that saddens me. It is even more sad if in fact the match DNA known person has an alibi or has never stepped foot in Colorado. They hurt their reputations. This is a high stakes case and I don’t want to see the prosecution engage in unethical behavior or make basic errors especially with the defense team who they are because they will take advantage of every single misstep. Meanwhile the heart of prosecution’s case remains the same as far as we know.

 

[marylamby]

I've read it in its entirety ....

One reason it may be filed is because the letter of intent, or subsequent lawsuit, behooves Barry in the eyes of Suzanne's children by declaring all investigators were out to get Barry arrested while overlooking possible exculpatory evidence. In fact, the daughter(s) may have instigated this lawsuit.

Jmhoo

I believe his defense attys are behind it. A cooperative attempt to question the integrity of the prosecution and LE, specifically to influence the public and, ultimately, the potential jury.
IMO

 

[JosieMae]

And what difference does it make anyway?

The random didnt kill Suzanne. Barry did

JMO

Right, BM is desperate.
Good.

 

[al66pine]

Doubt?

It's not beyond any doubt, the standard is beyond anyreasonable doubt...

@Murphy1950 sbm TYVM for making this distinction. The CO Jury Instructions Criminal - 2020* which the judge reads as part of the final charge to the jury underlines your point. Particularly this:**

E:03 "PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE BURDEN OF PROOF GENERALLY REASONABLE DOUBT
Every person charged with a crime is presumed innocent. This presumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial and should be given effect by you unless, after considering all of the evidence, you are then convinced that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of all of the elements necessary to constitute the crime charged. Reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon reason and common sense which arises from a fair and rational consideration of all of the evidence, or the lack of evidence, in the case. It is a doubt which is not a vague, speculative or imaginary doubt, but such a doubt as would cause reasonable people to hesitate to act in matters of importance to themselves. If you find from the evidence that each and every element has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. If you find from the evidence that the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty."

NOTES ON USE
This instruction must be given in every criminal case, except in sanity trials. This instruction combines the three traditional instructions on “Presumption of Innocence,” “Burden of Proof” and “Reasonable Doubt.” bbm
__________________________________
* https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Committees/Committee.cfm?Committee_ID=9
** https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...ns/CHAPTER_EConcludingGeneralInstructions.pdf

 

[al66pine]

Notice of Intent to Sue?

Who knows how to obtain the 10 page letter of intent lawsuit Barry may file?
(KKTV) - 11 News has obtained a letter of intent to sue attorneys and investigators in the Barry Morphew case.
The letter sites a false arrest and defamation among other things. <>To date, the remains of Suzanne Morphew have not been located but her bicycle was.
A family friend of Morphew sent 11 News Reporter Ashley Franco the documents.
Lawyers for Barry Morphew plan to sue prosecutors and investigators tied to the case of Suzanne Morphew

@DeDee Thx for this post & your later post saying you've read the notice.
A link to the full 10 pages, pls? Anyone? TiA.

 

[al66pine]

.... behooves Barry in the eyes of Suzanne's children by declaring all investigators were out to get Barry arrested while overlooking possible exculpatory evidence. In fact, the daughter(s) may have instigated this lawsuit...

@DeDee sbm Yes, one dau. may have prompted BM to seek civil counsel which may have triggered the Notice of Intent Letter, possible lawsuit against investigators.

But---- if the info about one dau. suggesting to SM that she divorce BM, file for a protective/restraining order, etc, is true,

then seems rather unlikely that dau's comments led to civil lawsuit idea. my2ct.

 

[jondaba]

Don't worry too much about these baloney lawsuits. I just had an opposing lawyer complain to the court that I am always filing "topless fotos" of myself in court cases.

What was not mentioned is that I was a 67 year old man sending the one Court one photo of me in my bathing suit to show I was in the islands on the date of proposed court conference.

In my experience, about 15% of lawyers believe it is good practice to talk total baloney, knowing that it is false. See for example Cristhian Bahena trial. His lawyers knowingly purveyed total lies hoping to win the case.

 

[gamma gal]

I would not say it is the sole purpose but criminal will precede civil if they ever do file the civil case. What we will hear about is the apparent release of early August discovery at the end of September. That is a no no and JL and the DA know it. If it is exculpatory or not remains to be seen. I personally think it was intentional on the part of the prosecution and that saddens me. It is even more sad if in fact the match DNA known person has an alibi or has never stepped foot in Colorado. They hurt their reputations. This is a high stakes case and I don’t want to see the prosecution engage in unethical behavior or make basic errors especially with the defense team who they are because they will take advantage of every single misstep. Meanwhile the heart of prosecution’s case remains the same as far as we know.

I don't think we can assume that we will hear about an "apparent release of early August discovery at the end of September". While it may be alleged in the lawsuit, it certainly doesn't mean that it automatically rises to the level of "apparent". Further, to presume this would be intentional by the prosecution if true, is a leap without basis.