Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #86

[gamma gal]

I would pay real money for satellite imagery on 5/9.

Dirt and gravel on the trailer. What kind of gravel?

He's an earth mover.

With about 12 hours on site, what landscape project could be tackle, finishing it in such a way no one would notice?

Could Suzanne be closer than we think?

I think those images are out there. Need credentials to get them.

MOO - FYI
*Quote colored red by me
For those interested in this detail, I believe the description stated in the AA on how LE found the Bobcat and trailer can be seen in the helicopter footage video of the Morphew residence by 9News. I don’t know what date this footage was taken but it shows the Bobcat and trailer as described in the AA. The best visual is at the 3:15 min mark if you pause the video.

And it shows someone in the cab of the black truck. Never noticed that before...

My question, after Suzanne told JL she was on WA, did they have a video chat between 2:11 and 2:43? It's been my assumption but doesn't LE say her last communication with anyone was at 2:11?

Perhaps Suzanne was in the shower receiving calls/texts from no one, her phone charging nearby, brown towel on the floor, when the hunter shoulder-barreled through the bedroom door.

JMO

And, maybe he picked up her phone, unlocked it, saw the texts and pic between JL and SM ...

 

[gamma gal]

Remember in August 2020 when BM told reporter LS that he had answered all of LE questions and just got one thing wrong?

‘People don’t know the truth’: Suzanne Morphew’s husband breaks silence after three months | FOX21 News Colorado

Barry did admit an inconsistency in one timeline he provided to investigators.

“It was only because I didn’t know the time that I did something, a mechanical thing, to my bobcat,” he said. “I was confused and I just found out my wife was missing, and I was a little bit not in my right mind when they were asking me these questions, but I did the best I could and I answered everything. I never once declined any interview.”

From page 125/129 of the AA:

“ No hike existed that Saturday afternoon in any of Barry’s multiple interviews with CBI until a June interview when he said they hiked to Fooses Lake.

CBI allowed him to assert that a few times until they refuted the hike in his July interview.

Barry was told that he was driving in Salida that afternoon, asking “Tim Backhoe” to purchase a backhoe attachment for his Bobcat. “

What kind of attachment was he looking to buy?

 

[sk716]

Does that mean there is inconsistent information within the AA with regarding to the day MG raked out the beach site? 5/8 or 5/9?

JMO, IMO

No, it's just a mess.

<modsnip - no link for quoted text>

 

[Kemug]

So on May 9 2020, there were 59 communications between BM and Suzanne! I must say I find this almost unbelievable. So many, you'd think they had just returned from their honeymoon, and were spending their first day of married bliss apart. I'm not saying it's not true, but I just don't understand it.

 

[Scootie98]

So I think it’s been established that the DNA found on the glovebox (full profile) is a partial match to the SA offender DNA (full profile) in CODIS. Meaning, it is not the SA offender’s DNA on the glovebox but likely a relative of his. So they have the SA offender’s name from CODIS but not the name of the person/relative of the SA whose DNA showed up on the glovebox, that we know of. At least that is what I understand from my own research, and reading up on the topic here and other places.
For all I know, LE has since found this person and cleared them based on alibi etc., and has provided the info to the DC.

On another note, I found this interesting article that explains some things about the reliability of DNA found at crime scenes today, and the importance of having other corroborating evidence to be able to really put crime scene DNA into context, which leads me to further deduce that the DNA found on Suzanne’s vehicle glovebox and other random DNA found on the various other items is a big nothingburger, since there’s been no mention of any corroborating evidence found (fingerprints, fibers, etc.) to tie to any of this random DNA and no one else has been arrested, so…And again, imo everything, all the evidence clearly points to BM. IMO, his DC knows it which is why they aren’t harping on his alibi because they know he doesn’t have one. SMDH. The DC literally has nothing else but to try and poke holes in LE investigation and try to sow reasonable doubt in public opinion/future jurors. That’s exactly what they’re hoping will happen with the imo useless DNA, which imo they may end up backing themselves into a corner with and likely will ultimately backfire making things worse for their client, if that is even possible for BM to look worse than he already does.
Snipped from article at link below:
Why DNA Evidence Can Be Unreliable

Myth 1: DNA Is Infallible:
One of the most pervasive fictions, says Phillips, is that DNA found at a crime scene is de facto proof of guilt. That may have been true(ish) 20 years ago when DNA could only be reliably extracted from fresh blood stains, semen and other large tissue samples. But today's forensic technology is so sensitive and precise that viable DNA can be pulled from just a few individual cells.
This so-called "touch DNA" or "trace DNA" has given investigators much more evidence to analyze, but it comes at a cost. We leave traces of our DNA everywhere, in dead skin cells, stray spit and strands of hair.
“The hardest job for investigators is to differentiate DNA that belongs to the criminal and DNA that randomly finds its way to the crime scene.

There's something called 'accidental transfer' or 'secondary transfer,'" says Phillips. "The DNA on a weapon might come from the person who actually touched the object or the person who shook hands with the person who touched the object."

“Sometimes it's the forensic investigators themselves who accidentally contaminate the evidence. The guide shares the bizarre example of Adam Scott, a man wrongfully convicted of rape when his DNA was found in a genital swab. Scott's DNA was a perfect match — a one in a billion probability — and it was the only evidence used to convict him, despite Scott's claim that he was more than 200 miles (322 kilometers) away the night of the incident.
Scott spent five months in custody before the truth came out. A technician in the crime lab had reused a plastic plate that contained a sample of Scott's saliva from an unrelated "spitting incident." Phone records also corroborated Scott's claim that he was in his hometown at the time of the attack.”

“Phillips says that judges and prosecutors have learned from examples like the Scott case that DNA evidence alone is not enough to convict. With even a chance of contamination or secondary transfer, there must be other forms of corroborating evidence — like fiber samples, eyewitness accounts or fingerprints — that put the DNA results into context.”

All of the above IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne


Why DNA Evidence Can Be Unreliable

the various interpretations and differences of opinion regarding partial DNA being discussed here is exactly what the defense is developing for their case....everything they are doing and saying is about reasonable doubt. One juror is their target, imo.

 

[Scootie98]

With this, I had wondered if maybe BM had used that pile of clothing laying in the closet to wipe sweat off himself or just put his arms or whatever in the shorts/pants and the dog actually was looking for his scent.....
Would that work that way?
For instance, if that pile of clothes was clean and he handled them and got his smell on those clothes, and knew he did, then give them to officers for the dogs, would the dogs pick up SM scent from the clothing or BMs?

How do we know that Barry listened to or viewed crime stories on his hunting trips? Wouldn't that info come from buddies he was with on those trips? I mention that because I am intrigued by the comrads at the fire dept. Those are normally close buddies, who confide in each other about "guy stuff". For that reason, I am curious how much they know about Barry's personal life, including his interest in other women....if not his relationship to other women? That Salida area just seems to be your typical small town environment where people know each others business. Barry was very much into his buddies....it seems. So that would be a place to double check his statements about meeting SD for the first time.

 

[Scootie98]

Definitely, IMO it fits with the timeline. He bragged about his ability to vanish a body, I am sure he thinks he has done it. That’s why he is so willing to carry on the “I’m innocent charade" (IMO)

that particular bragging, IIRC, was within about 24 hours of Suzanne disappearing.....meaning, the thought was fresh in his mind....imo.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

How do we know that Barry listened to or viewed crime stories on his hunting trips? Wouldn't that info come from buddies he was with on those trips? I mention that because I am intrigued by the comrads at the fire dept. Those are normally close buddies, who confide in each other about "guy stuff". For that reason, I am curious how much they know about Barry's personal life, including his interest in other women....if not his relationship to other women? That Salida area just seems to be your typical small town environment where people know each others business. Barry was very much into his buddies....it seems. So that would be a place to double check his statements about meeting SD for the first time.

I don’t know if we have a really good sense of Barry. My impression is some people were shut out of the conversation or chose to absent themselves early in the case. My guess is an actual trial will be the most unbiased source of info.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

the various interpretations and differences of opinion regarding partial DNA being discussed here is exactly what the defense is developing for their case....everything they are doing and saying is about reasonable doubt. One juror is their target, imo.

If they have a name it shouldn’t be that difficult to figure out where the connection to the car occurred so in my opinion the significance to the trial is a coin flip.

 

[Boxer]

Unfortunately, the defense is hoping Suzanne is lost in the noise. That’s why all the ballyhoo about the “exculpatory” partial DNA that could possibly “match” a sex offender. It could also possibly “match” a few thousand (my own unscientific, estimated and probably inaccurate number) other males. They don’t have enough alleles to match to anyone with any legal certainty.

IF the prosecution withheld actual exculpatory evidence, that’s a different story, but IMO it’s all defense spaghetti at the wall.[/QUOTE
assaging a grotesaue monater in court.

So on May 9 2020, there were 59 communications between BM and Suzanne! I must say I find this almost unbelievable. So many, you'd think they had just returned from their honeymoon, and were spending their first day of married bliss apart. I'm not saying it's not true, but I just don't understand it.

MOO BM is manic.
He apparently lies all the time so IMHO his brain is shot from so much covering and explaining his explanations.
Also he is apparently also very aggressive.

And this is without reference to covering up a murder.

An agressive possessive competetive man with a truth and argument escalation problem robo texting his wife. It seems like he realized that week that lying and being a jerk do not add up to a happy marriage, even if he IS right all time.

Bet his lawyers won't let him on the stand.

 

[Lyanna]

This is an important discrepancy that I too didn't realize previously, Good Sleuthing! If I had to believe one of the sources, it would information in the AA.

I have always wondered if BM intentionally kept MG from seeing/using the Bobcat after the morning of 5/8.
I've also wondered if MG backs up BM's story about a known damaged Bobcat attachment, prior to 5/9.

IMO, that's part of the reason BM sent his thugs to visit MG.

IMO, JMO

There's something on her phone that had BM worried as they were pretty specific about her right to not hand it over, wondering what that's about - image of bobcat maybe?

Imo

 

[Boxer]

There's something on her phone that had BM worried as they were pretty specific about her right to not hand it over, wondering what that's about - image of bobcat maybe?

Imo

To have your intense boss send his nephew and hunting buddy to tell you don't have to let the police look at your phone after bosses wife disappears?
The entitlement that BM feels to ask MG to do that must be from something.
A basic drug culture mutual understanding to be against the police might fit.

 

[FromGermany1]

So on May 9 2020, there were 59 communications between BM and Suzanne! I must say I find this almost unbelievable. So many, you'd think they had just returned from their honeymoon, and were spending their first day of married bliss apart. I'm not saying it's not true, but I just don't understand it.

Probably has no problems with writing, although it looked more like that on the note "baby blue helmet biking clothes".

 

[Puzzles8]

To have your intense boss send his nephew and hunting buddy to tell you don't have to let the police look at your phone after bosses wife disappears?
The entitlement that BM feels to ask MG to do that must be from something.
A basic drug culture mutual understanding to be against the police might fit.

Regardless of the date discrepancy (5/8 or 5/9) there is another statement on page 47 of the AA that caught my eye.

Per the AA page 47
Morgan stated on May 8, 2020, Barry picked her up from Anytime Fitness, 9985 HWY 50, Poncha Springs, CO. They traveled to ajobsite at 6962 County Road (CR) 105, Salida. They arrived at around 8:00 AM, completed a "rock beach" project and le ft. At around 11:00 AM, Barry took her back to her vehicle by Anytime Fitness, paid her in cash for the job, and left. Morgan stated that Barry mentioned he was going to go hiking or biking .

RBBM, If BM paid her the same day in cash for the beach racking, why did BM's thugs follow up later with either more cash or a check? The gist I take out of the thugs visit was they didn't want MG to turn over her phone to LE. They wanted the additional cash/check offer to MG to appear as payment for the beach raking job...but she had already been paid in cash, the day of the job, by BM.

So what was their additional payment offer for?

Hmmmmmm.

JMO, IMO

ETA - Mof3B is correct in that the payment delivered by the thugs was 'payment' for the Broomfield job...that no one actually worked on. BM didn't leave the necessary tools, yet kept his crew there for several days.

Does anyone remember if that payment was cash or via check?

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Regardless of the date discrepancy (5/8 or 5/9) there is another statement on page 47 of the AA that caught my eye.



RBBM, If BM paid her the same day in cash for the beach racking, why did BM's thugs follow up later with either more cash or a check? The gist I take out of the thugs visit was they didn't want MG to turn over her phone to LE. They wanted the additional cash/check offer to MG to appear as payment for the beach raking job...but she had already been paid in cash, the day of the job, by BM.

So what was their additional payment offer for?

Hmmmmmm.

JMO, IMO

The payment for the Broomfield trip is when the conversation about the phone took place. Clearly it seems the subs were getting paid in cash by the job.

 

[CGray123]

If they have a name it shouldn’t be that difficult to figure out where the connection to the car occurred so in my opinion the significance to the trial is a coin flip.

I respectfully disagree. Unless there is DNA present on the bike or the helmet or in the house that actually matches a known sexual predator or serial killer who was in Salida on May 9, the partial match is no more significant than any other DNA you would expect on a piece of machinery that is serviced by the owner. If I were the DA, I would file a motion in limine , asking the judge to prevent the defense from using this information to confuse the jury.

I also disagree with your view that the DA committed misconduct by failing to disclose the name of the sexual offender who appears to be a distant relative of the person who actually touched the RR's glove box. He has no personal connection at all to any person or aspect of this case. He is entirely irrelevant because IT IS NOT HIS DNA IN THE CAR!

There is no reason to believe that the person whose DNA is actually on the glove box of SM's RR is anything other than a mechanic who worked on the car, and who has no more connection to SM's disappearance than you or me.

If the defense actually wants to know if a convicted sex offender was in Salida on Mother's Day weekend last year, there's a way to find out. Convicted offenders are required to register their addresses at all times. Probation offices track those on parole. Some agencies even keep track of the locations of suspected serial killers. Subpoenaes could quickly produce the identity of all offenders and suspected killers in Salida, and the defense could test their DNA against all unknowns associated with SM.

But the defense doesn't really believe anyone other than their client killed SM. They don't even expect sanctions against the DA. It makes nice headlines and opportunities to bamboozle the public.

 

[CGray123]

On the glove box. It's not exculpatory. It's not a match it's a partial profile....

<modsnip - no link for quoted text>

The AA did not contain all the information produced during the investigation. Clearly, the defense had information about the partial match in June - they mentioned it during a hearing that month. It must have been among the terrabites of data delivered timely by the DA.

The defense's claim is that the DA knew and failed to timely disclose the name of the Arizona sex offender who is apparently a distant relative of the person who touched the glove box of SM's Range Rover.

Regardless of the fact that the DNA does not place the Arizona offender in Salida, it's no surprise that he hired counsel when contacted by law enforcement about a murder: he would want to be careful to avoid any involvement with such a case, lest his parole officer or local LE seek to use his probation status to coerce him. He wouldn't give the defense the time of day, either, for the same reason.

If the defense wants to know whose DNA is on the glove box, they should start with the Arizona man's birth certificate and do their own geneaological research. They know that would be a complete waste of time, but they don't mind sending the taxpayers on that wild goose chase.

 

[OldCop]

Don’t know if anyone happened to catch Dateline on Friday night, Season 30, Episode 7, Horror at the Lake. It is about a FL woman who was murdered in her home. During the course of the investigation investigators obtained cell phone records from her phone. They were able to show her cell movement from the house, through the yard, and down to the lake behind her home right after her murder. There was a graphic which showed the steps taken by whoever carried the phone to the lake where it was discarded along with some security cameras, also removed from the home.
This is the same type of data being used in the SM case to show his movements on the afternoon of May 9, when it is believed he was chasing SM around the home prior to killing her. BM has stated he was chasing/killing chipmunks.
Just found it interesting to see it being used in this investigation.

 

[Boxer]

<modsnip>

The AA did not contain all the information produced during the investigation. Clearly, the defense had information about the partial match in June - they mentioned it during a hearing that month. It must have been among the terrabites of data delivered timely by the DA.

The defense's claim is that the DA knew and failed to timely disclose the name of the Arizona sex offender who is apparently a distant relative of the person who touched the glove box of SM's Range Rover.

Regardless of the fact that the DNA does not place the Arizona offender in Salida, it's no surprise that he hired counsel when contacted by law enforcement about a murder: he would want to be careful to avoid any involvement with such a case, lest his parole officer or local LE seek to use his probation status to coerce him. He wouldn't give the defense the time of day, either, for the same reason.

If the defense wants to know whose DNA is on the glove box, they should start with the Arizona man's birth certificate and do their own geneaological research. They know that would be a complete waste of time, but they don't mind sending the taxpayers on that wild goose chase.

Well if it was in the discovery in June isn't it moot for an action.
The D will cry "tunnel vision" maybe, but not a breach of discovery.
The partial match isn't exculpatory, the D is saying it could be.
So yeah, do the familial work up.
Add it on to the millions it's costing to bring justice here.

 

[CGray123]

MG wasn't the subject of the investigation and I think she was interviewed primarily to corroborate BM's timeline.

We already know from multiple MSM sources that according to MG, BM and MG worked at the riverfront build site on Saturday morning, May 9, and that BM surprised MG by ending the shift early -- allegedly to go biking and/or hiking with SM -- "make the wife happy."

If I recall correctly, in BM's interview with investigators on June 3, he actually stuck to this script! (AA pg 25/129). It seems to me that by the time BM was arrested, he'd in fact told authorities several versions of what he did on May 9.
MOO

RBBM.

I agree that MG was in a position to verify (or not) BM's timeline for Saturday, and that was a goal of her interview.

But I believe some of the early interest in her - and the reason she was invited to undergo a lie detector interview - was based on some local gossip that she was BM's lover and a possible conspirator, accomplice, or accessory. Same for the press interest IMO. She has effectively overcome the gossip, it seems.

ITA with the rest of your post!