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

[Boxer]

Does anyone believe that the DNA was found in the house? I thought the sex offender DNA was only found on glovebox?

Defense outworking the DA right now.

 

[Bluebythec]

I think you are on to something.

I think it was confrontational (which is why BB was IMO so defensive) and it may have been confrontational because, rather out of character for Suzanne, because it wasn't Suzanne (JMO)! If SD was the cleaning lady for those two rental properties, then this may have been a confrontation, not over the community dumpster, but over employment. JMO but if SD wasn't cleaning those houses because of covid, cancelations, other reasons, and that was her walking with Barry, she'd be just finding out she'd been replaced!

There are only so many houses in that development and even fewer that are rentals. SD had been cleaning in that cul de sac since 2018. IF she and Barry met in the course of that work and began a clandestine relationship prior to when they said they did and prior to MDW, they may indeed have met at the dumpster, regularly. Their handy meet-up spot. Even during the pandemic. Even on that Wednesday night.

I wonder if this night was the origin of Suzanne's entry in her list of 50 reasons -- about his zipper, you know when Barry said he was "checking on deer."

The last straw.

The next morning she texted she was DONE.

JMO

Gives a whole new meaning to "dumpster diving" !

 

[Megnut]

Gives a whole new meaning to "dumpster diving" !

Begs the questions:

Are you going on a date? Or just taking out the trash?

JMO

 

[jakat]

Begs the questions:

Are you going on a date? Or just taking out the trash?

JMO

Both!

 

[FromGermany1]

This is the full extent of the DNA.

Who is EXCLUDED??
"The dart body (Item 44.2), collected by CCSO, submitted as “dart from box in garage” was swabbed and a low-level DNA profile referenced that EXCLUDED could have been a contributor."

 

[Lyanna]

I think this latest development of Barry and the 'random dna' just reeks of desperation.

Wouldn't defence have been able to argue this in the Prelim if it wasn't a red herring?

Eta, could start a book series of 'Barry and the ........' - all with various titles

Barry and the Murderous Abducting Bobcat
Barry and love at the dumpster
Barry and the worst night of his life

 

[StarrDetective]

Let's play a game. Let's change this partial nonsense matching countless people, to a confirmed match to a serial killer. This is ridiculous I know, but for the sake of argument let's say it's those two things.

Make a case that this person is involved, while also excluding Barry, which every piece of evidence points to.

I love this game!! Even the most creative story tellers can’t win this one.

 

[gamma gal]

I wonder if they checked the DNA from the boyfriends. Perhaps one has stayed in the guest room overnight.

Where did Barry's hunting friends stay when they came to Colorado?

I wonder if SD’s DNA is anywhere....

 

[Seattle1]

I wonder if they checked the DNA from the boyfriends. Perhaps one has stayed in the guest room overnight.

Where did Barry's hunting friends stay when they came to Colorado?

As proof of how crazy this allegation by the defense, I'm sure there's also unknown female DNA inside the house, bedrooms, and sheets! Maybe even Grandma's DNA -- I hope it doesn't mean that next, with no other evidence whatsoever, we all jump on the bandwagon and accuse her of disappearing SM!

Barry Morphew plans to sue DA, investigators for malicious prosecution

In the letter, Morphew’s attorney states the affidavit fails to reveal there is unknown male DNA found on evidence collected in the case, including Suzanne’s bike, helmet, sheets in the dryer, one of the bedrooms, and in her car.

 

[DizzyB]

I wonder if they checked the DNA from the boyfriends. Perhaps one has stayed in the guest room overnight.

Where did Barry's hunting friends stay when they came to Colorado?

They may have stayed at PP-they certainly hung out there. Including one that is no longer comfortable with Barry.

 

[sk716]

They may have stayed at PP-they certainly hung out there. Including one that is no longer comfortable with Barry.

I believe he is one of the REDACTED's in the DNA listings. Best I can tell the only names redacted were the minors. The other redactions are, I believe, Suzanne's marijuana prescription and whichever psych med she was prescribed for living with Barry.

ETA MM1 and her bff were not minor children at the time, but are also redacted.

 

[sk716]

Who is EXCLUDED??
"The dart body (Item 44.2), collected by CCSO, submitted as “dart from box in garage” was swabbed and a low-level DNA profile referenced that EXCLUDED could have been a contributor."

You're missing the words "low-level". Like it hits on 10,000 people and one of them is in CODIS.

 

[CGray123]

Barry is suing the prosecutor. Sex offender's DNA found on bike, helmet and bedsheet!!!!!! If the prosecutor did not put this in discovery, she is in deep doodoo. Barry Morphew plans lawsuit against DA, investigators over alleged DNA evidence pointing to sex offender

Looking at the Colorado pattern civil jury instructions for claims like false arrest, malicious prosecution, defamation, etc. it seems to me the legal claims identified in BM's notice letter face insurmountable obstacles to success, not least because a judge found probable cause for purposes of both the arrest and requiring BM to stand trial. You'll have to look at these instructions yourself if you're interested because there isn't room to quote and synthesize them here.

Also, at 130 pages, the letter goes well beyond the amount of information required by the Colorado notice of claim statute, which requires concise (defined as, "Giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.") statements of the factual basis of the claim, and the nature and the extent of the injury claimed to have been suffered.

These considerations, and the fact the letter was distributed to family and friends, indicates to me that its sole purpose was public relations - especially to shore up support among BM's family and friends. Keeping Team Barry motivated and engaged is obviously worth spending a ton of money (talking $10,000.00 or more) on a notice of claim letter that is very unlikely to be followed up with a lawsuit. MOO.

 

[Cindizzi]

Looking at the Colorado pattern civil jury instructions for claims like false arrest, malicious prosecution, defamation, etc. it seems to me the legal claims identified in BM's notice letter face insurmountable obstacles to success, not least because a judge found probable cause for purposes of both the arrest and requiring BM to stand trial. You'll have to look at these instructions yourself if you're interested because there isn't room to quote and synthesize them here.

Also, at 130 pages, the letter goes well beyond the amount of information required by the Colorado notice of claim statute, which requires concise (defined as, "Giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.") statements of the factual basis of the claim, and the nature and the extent of the injury claimed to have been suffered.

These considerations, and the fact the letter was distributed to family and friends, indicates to me that its sole purpose was public relations - especially to shore up support among BM's family and friends. Keeping Team Barry motivated and engaged is obviously worth spending a ton of money (talking $10,000.00 or more) on a notice of claim letter that is very unlikely to be followed up with a lawsuit. MOO.

I agree with what you’re saying but just wanted to point out that the first reporting on this says it is a 10 page document. That sounds more feasible to me. I believe the Daily Mail got the 130 pages from the AA being 130 pages.
JMO

Exclusive: Barry Morphew attorneys to sue case investigators for false arrest, defamation
Morphew’s civil attorneys say investigators knew the man’s identity as early as Aug. 2, a week before the evidence hearing in the murder case. The 10-page document says prosecutors waited until Morphew was ordered to trial before they released it to his defense team. In doing this, Morphew's attorneys contend, prosecutors “conspired to commit a fraud upon the court by withholding exculpatory evidence.”

 

[CGray123]

I agree with what you’re saying but just wanted to point out that the first reporting on this says it is a 10 page document. That sounds more feasible to me. I believe the Daily Mail got the 130 pages from the AA being 130 pages.
JMO

Exclusive: Barry Morphew attorneys to sue case investigators for false arrest, defamation
Morphew’s civil attorneys say investigators knew the man’s identity as early as Aug. 2, a week before the evidence hearing in the murder case. The 10-page document says prosecutors waited until Morphew was ordered to trial before they released it to his defense team. In doing this, Morphew's attorneys contend, prosecutors “conspired to commit a fraud upon the court by withholding exculpatory evidence.”

Spot on, @Cindizzi! I should remember that the DM is a dubious source. But IMO, even a 10 page NOC is over-the-top long.

Also, IIRC the question of the partial match with a sex offender came up in the prelim, raised by the defense. The judge even noted it in making his determination that he could not find the "presumption great" for purposes of bond eligibility. But he found probable cause and set the case for trial notwithstanding the possibility that there might be a potential suspect other than BM, pointing to all the evidence against BM and the relatively low standard for probable cause.

IMO, it's hard to see how the identity of the man would have made a difference in the judge's analysis. And thanks to the defense overstepping their time, the prosecution had no chance to present expert testimony as to what a "partial match" really means i.e. the Arizona sex offender is not a match, but he is related to the match to some as-yet-indeterminate degree.

 

[MassGuy]

I agree with what you’re saying but just wanted to point out that the first reporting on this says it is a 10 page document. That sounds more feasible to me. I believe the Daily Mail got the 130 pages from the AA being 130 pages.
JMO

Exclusive: Barry Morphew attorneys to sue case investigators for false arrest, defamation
Morphew’s civil attorneys say investigators knew the man’s identity as early as Aug. 2, a week before the evidence hearing in the murder case. The 10-page document says prosecutors waited until Morphew was ordered to trial before they released it to his defense team. In doing this, Morphew's attorneys contend, prosecutors “conspired to commit a fraud upon the court by withholding exculpatory evidence.”

That entire article was by far the most egregious in regard to errors, that I've ever seen them publish (referring to the Daily Mail piece).

Total disaster.

 

[Cindizzi]

In addition to DNA evidence, the letter of intent to sue also says that LE failed to mention in the AA that the tranquilizer gun was inoperable.

Well it came out on day 4 of the Prelim that an officer is on body cam footage saying it, so that means it’s in Discovery, correct?
https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1430206373783035910?s=21
In body camera video you hear Deputy Himshoot say that when he found the gun it did not even work properly. He says that it hadn't been fired recently. @KKTV11News #BarryMorphew #SuzanneMorphew

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1430207252565274628?s=21
Prosecution asks if the gun was ever examined by a firearm expert. Deputy says no it was not. Defense fires back saying that he may not be a firearm expert but he was familiar with guns and he made determinations with familiarity with firearms that it did not appear to work.

I don’t understand how they think putting it in the AA would have exonerated BM.

In fact what IS in the AA is LE asking BM when was the last time he used it to to tranq deer and he said April . The gun appearing to not been used in a long time means he lied about that.

I know that LE narrative is that he used a tranquilizer dart on SM but doesn’t the AA imply that they think he used a .22 to do it? That is what he admits to using when running around chasing chipmunks. JMO

 

[Seattle1]

Spot on, @Cindizzi! I should remember that the DM is a dubious source. But IMO, even a 10 page NOC is over-the-top long.

Also, IIRC the question of the partial match with a sex offender came up in the prelim, raised by the defense. The judge even noted it in making his determination that he could not find the "presumption great" for purposes of bond eligibility. But he found probable cause and set the case for trial notwithstanding the possibility that there might be a potential suspect other than BM, pointing to all the evidence against BM and the relatively low standard for probable cause.

IMO, it's hard to see how the identity of the man would have made a difference in the judge's analysis. And thanks to the defense overstepping their time, the prosecution had no chance to present expert testimony as to what a "partial match" really means i.e. the Arizona sex offender is not a match, but he is related to the match to some as-yet-indeterminate degree.

^^bbm

Exactly! And my position from the first day this intention to sue for civil damages hit the news was that BM was not damaged here whatsoever given that due to the partial DNA evidence linked to a SA case in another state, the Judge ruled that the state failed to meet the standard for PEPG, and BM was granted bail after bound over for trial for first-degree murder (i.e., capital murder).

 

[Seattle1]

In addition to DNA evidence, the letter of intent to sue also says that LE failed to mention in the AA that the tranquilizer gun was inoperable.

Well it came out on day 4 of the Prelim that an officer is on body cam footage saying it, so that means it’s in Discovery, correct?
https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1430206373783035910?s=21
In body camera video you hear Deputy Himshoot say that when he found the gun it did not even work properly. He says that it hadn't been fired recently. @KKTV11News #BarryMorphew #SuzanneMorphew

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1430207252565274628?s=21
Prosecution asks if the gun was ever examined by a firearm expert. Deputy says no it was not. Defense fires back saying that he may not be a firearm expert but he was familiar with guns and he made determinations with familiarity with firearms that it did not appear to work.

I don’t understand how they think putting it in the AA would have exonerated BM.

In fact what IS in the AA is LE asking BM when was the last time he used it to to tranq deer and he said April . The gun appearing to not been used in a long time means he lied about that.

I know that LE narrative is that he used a tranquilizer dart on SM but doesn’t the AA imply that they think he used a .22 to do it? That is what he admits to using when running around chasing chipmunks. JMO

Yes. During questioning in November of 2020, Barry indicated he was shooting chipmunks. Agent Grusing asked him if he was using a . 22 caliber rifle, which he said was important because investigators found a tranquilizer dart cap in the Morphew's dryer, and knew that a . 22 caliber rifle would also fire that...

Prosecutors Outline Barry And Suzanne Morphew's Movements On Days Around Her Disappearance.

 

[Leader6518]

But that doesn’t really explain why prosecution is taking risks with their case. The motions hearing on the 9th and now this latest news were totally avoidable. This stuff isn’t about Barry it is about prosecution execution. Maybe they do need a new “lead” for the team but if they aren’t careful they will damage their own case in the interim. I think Barry’s lawyers are going to keep looking for advantages if they are dropped in their laps by mistakes from prosecution.

Your statement above must assume the facts presented by the defense is a true and accurate statement of facts and not another stunt. I think the timing of this info on the heals of the complaint about the DA talking about the case is interesting.
1. If LE did not pursue the DNA as defense is claiming, how did they know an alleged name?
2. They very well could have just received the info (assuming that is factual info) just before trial but was focused on the PH and did not actually review it until afterwards.
I have seen facts get omitted so often to further an agenda than I can count.
This is my own opinion from my experience as an investigator with my company for the last 15 years (not LE investigations) but I do have to work with the Feds.