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

[Auntie Cipation]

Was there actually unknown DNA (not BM's) found on the needle sheath in the dryer?

 

[Tumbleweed]

^^ Correcting AA reference pg.
BM interview on June 3-- at this time, BM was then alleging he'd come home around 11:30 AM, had lunch with SM and they spent the day together. Went hiking and had a wonderful evening where after dinner - he was tinkering in the garage...

Thanks for correcting the page number. Really have no idea where I got 71 from...

 

[Tumbleweed]

Was there actually unknown DNA (not BM's) found on the needle sheath in the dryer?

From page 45 of the AA:
A plastic hypodermic cover (Item 41 ), collected from the dryer, was tested by CBI for DNA. A low-level partial DNA mixture of two people was recovered, with Suzanne and <redacted> being possible contributors. Barry was excluded as a contributor.

From page 10:
Regarding the tranquilizer dart cap on May 19, 2020: "A plastic needle cover was located in the dryer drum. This was collected by the CCSO along with additional items and swabs from different areas." The needle cover was recovered with sheets from <redacted> bed inside the dryer.

 

[Curiousobserver]

The whole article is garbage because they couldn't be a$$ed to see that it was a needle SHEETH in the dryer with unknown DNA on not. Not a sheet. Zero DNA on sheets. Fact checking matters.

Look the Daily Mail is insinuating they have her body! I don't have a good enough expletive for that kind of misinformation and clickbait.

Agree- we have no real evidence of what DNA was found where or in what context. The "news" often misreports or sensationalizes.

I speculated upthread about the implications of trace DNA on sheets because multiple news outlets reported it this way (but we have to remember that this could be 100% false).

We really won't know anything for sure until there is a trial.

We do know that nobody was arrested other than Barry and I doubt that would be the case if substantial DNA evidence was found that matched a particular other person. LE would be happy to arrest the "real" perp if there was substantial evidence it was someone else.

Again, how a good defense attorney sows reasonable doubt in court is very different than actual forensic science.

 

[O.Incandenza]

The whole article is garbage because they couldn't be a$$ed to see that it was a needle SHEETH in the dryer with unknown DNA on not. Not a sheet. Zero DNA on sheets. Fact checking matters.

Look the Daily Mail is insinuating they have her body! I don't have a good enough expletive for that kind of misinformation and clickbait.

The Daily Mail's article is terrible, but I believe they are correct in saying that the letter from Barry's new attorneys does claim that unknown male DNA was also found on the sheets in the dryer. Both Ashley Franco and Lauren Scharf said the same thing in their articles after seeing the letter, and it's in the version of the letter that has been circulating online.

 

[sk716]

The Daily Mail's article is terrible, but I believe they are correct in saying that the letter from Barry's new attorneys does claim that unknown male DNA was also found on the sheets in the dryer. Both Ashley Franco and Lauren Scharf said the same thing in their articles after seeing the letter, and it's in the version of the letter that has been circulating online.

If there was DNA on sheets in the dryer we would have heard about it in the AA/PH. This is all intentional by the defense.

 

[Pyrite]

If there was DNA on sheets in the dryer we would have heard about it in the AA/PH. This is all intentional by the defense.

Not if , as the letter of intention states, LE and the DA were trying to withhold exculpatory evidence (this DNA ).

 

[sk716]

Was there actually unknown DNA (not BM's) found on the needle sheath in the dryer?

No, on the sheeth it's a possible mix of Suzanne and a redacted person. Probably one of the girls from the sheets in the dryer. The needle and body both have EXCLUDED and REDACTED in the AA. I have no clue who EXCLUDED is but redactions seem to only apply to the Morphew daughters and their close friends.

Barry Morphew Redacted Arrest Affidavit

(CBI Laboratory Results)
On June 3, 2020, the CBI Laboratory, hereafter CBI Lab, provided the results of DNA analysis for the CCSO case 20000911. Sixty-five evidence items, to include DNA buccal swabs from the Morphew family members, Andrew Moorman, REDACTED and others were listed. Of note, no workable DNA was recovered from the Bobcat blade, the PNUE-DART box or the dryer.

On August 31, 2020, SA Grusing reviewed the Lab results with CBI Lab Forensic Scientist Caitlin Rogers to discuss results relevant to this affidavit. The following items were noted:

The DNA on the bicycle seat (Item 5.1) included a mixture of four people: Suzanne being the primary, with Barry and one of the responding CCSO personnel (Carricato) being included. The fourth male is unknown.51

The DNA on the bicycle grips (Item 6.1) included a DNA mixture of four people: Suzanne and Sgt. Mullenax being primary contributors. Barry was excluded as a contributor.

The DNA on the bicycle brakes and handlebars (Item 7.1) included a mixture of four people: Suzanne, Deputy Brown and Deputy Himschoot were primary contributors. Barry was excluded.

Page 44 of 129 Back to top of AA

The front driver door (Item 25 .l) of the 2015 white Land Rover (license plate CSU58l) was tested and the DNA was consistent with samples from Barry and Suzanne. REDACTED and REDACTED were excluded.52

A plastic hypodermic cover (Item 41), collected from the dryer, was tested by CBI for DNA. A low-level partial DNA mixture of two people was recovered, with Suzanne and REDACTED being possible contributors. Barry was excluded as a contributor.

A dart needle (Item 44.1), collected by CCSO, submitted as “dart from box in garage,” was swabbed and a partial DNA profile was developed, with REDACTED included as the contributor with “moderate”support.

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.

The interior cushions of the helmet (Item 49.2) were tested for DNA and a partial profile was developed. The mixture was more likely to involve Barry and Suzanne that corning from anyone else by a factor of 6.2 times.

 

[sk716]

Agree- we have no real evidence of what DNA was found where or in what context. The "news" often misreports or sensationalizes.

I speculated upthread about the implications of trace DNA on sheets because multiple news outlets reported it this way (but we have to remember that this could be 100% false).

We really won't know anything for sure until there is a trial.

We do know that nobody was arrested other than Barry and I doubt that would be the case if substantial DNA evidence was found that matched a particular other person. LE would be happy to arrest the "real" perp if there was substantial evidence it was someone else.

Again, how a good defense attorney sows reasonable doubt in court is very different than actual forensic science.

BBM, I'm hoping when the full case file is released, we'll get all of the DNA info.

 

[sk716]

So, I'm working on updating @oviedo and @OldCop 's timeline and I came across something weird. What was he doing for 45 minutes? Where was he?

3:58 am - Barry's cell moves from home to near CR 225 / HWY 50 where Suzanne's bike was found
4:10 am & 4:15 am - Activity from Suzanne’s phone (AA page 72 of 129)
Barry's phone goes left towards Garfield (where Suzanne's helmet was found) instead of right toward Poncha Springs and Denver. Barry turned around at Garfield to resume his drive to Broomfield.

Around the 4:00 am hour, Morgan Gentile was confident she heard Barry’s Ford F-350 drive eastbound past her house on HWY 50. Gentile stated she did not see the truck but that his truck has a very distinctive exhaust.

4:23 am - Suzanne's phone makes its last ping off of the Poncha Springs tower as located near Puma Path.
4:31 am - Barry phone goes into airplane mode.
5:14 am - Barry's truck was seen passing video surveillance on Highway 50 right near the junction with Highway 285.
5:16 am - Barry's truck was seen passing video surveillance just north on Highway 285

 

[Seattle1]

So, I'm working on updating @oviedo and @OldCop 's timeline and I came across something weird. What was he doing for 45 minutes? Where was he?

3:58 am - Barry's cell moves from home to near CR 225 / HWY 50 where Suzanne's bike was found
4:10 am & 4:15 am - Activity from Suzanne’s phone (AA page 72 of 129)
Barry's phone goes left towards Garfield (where Suzanne's helmet was found) instead of right toward Poncha Springs and Denver. Barry turned around at Garfield to resume his drive to Broomfield.

Around the 4:00 am hour, Morgan Gentile was confident she heard Barry’s Ford F-350 drive eastbound past her house on HWY 50. Gentile stated she did not see the truck but that his truck has a very distinctive exhaust.

4:23 am - Suzanne's phone makes its last ping off of the Poncha Springs tower as located near Puma Path.
4:31 am - Barry phone goes into airplane mode.
5:14 am - Barry's truck was seen passing video surveillance on Highway 50 right near the junction with Highway 285.
5:16 am - Barry's truck was seen passing video surveillance just north on Highway 285

A link to the version of the timeline you're working from would be helpful. Thanks.

 

[FromGermany1]

So, I'm working on updating @oviedo and @OldCop 's timeline and I came across something weird. What was he doing for 45 minutes? Where was he?

3:58 am - Barry's cell moves from home to near CR 225 / HWY 50 where Suzanne's bike was found
4:10 am & 4:15 am - Activity from Suzanne’s phone (AA page 72 of 129)
Barry's phone goes left towards Garfield (where Suzanne's helmet was found) instead of right toward Poncha Springs and Denver. Barry turned around at Garfield to resume his drive to Broomfield.

Around the 4:00 am hour, Morgan Gentile was confident she heard Barry’s Ford F-350 drive eastbound past her house on HWY 50. Gentile stated she did not see the truck but that his truck has a very distinctive exhaust.

4:23 am - Suzanne's phone makes its last ping off of the Poncha Springs tower as located near Puma Path.
4:31 am - Barry phone goes into airplane mode.
5:14 am - Barry's truck was seen passing video surveillance on Highway 50 right near the junction with Highway 285.
5:16 am - Barry's truck was seen passing video surveillance just north on Highway 285

Yes, we forgot MG! She heard him or at least his truck, when he was allegedly - where exactly?? (I believe her absolutely.)

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Yes, we forgot MG! She heard him or at least his truck, when he was allegedly - where exactly?? (I believe her absolutely.)

Too bad she didn't know what time. Doesn't appear it would have been 4 AM from the known data. Too bad we don't know which direction he was headed on 50 when he passed the surveillance camera on 50 near 285. That turn is a left turn coming from Puma Path home or a right turn off if coming from the Salida area plus I don't think we know exactly where the surveillance camera is located on 50. And if coming from Salida depending on where he was, it could have been faster not to use 50 all the way to 285 and connect up with 285 off 291 IMO. Just depends...

 

[TIGER0822]

DNA dashboard, it could come from many sources. Was the car detailed? Did a mechanic work on it? Did SM have a passenger in the car?

 

[Murphy1950]

DNA from obvious blood, semen, sweat...worth a look I suppose. Touch DNA, skin cells?? Smoke and Mirrors.

The Phantom of Heilbronn….unknown female serial killer whose existence was inferred from DNA evidence found at numerous crime scenes in Austria, France and Germany from 1993 to 2009. The six murders among these.... The only connection between the crimes was DNA, which had been recovered from 40 crime scenes. In late March 2009, investigators concluded that the "Phantom" criminal did not exist, and the DNA recovered at the crime scenes had already been present on the cotton swabs used for collecting DNA samples; they belonged to a woman who worked at the factory where they were made.

I doubt this sheets DNA business especially after the wash, But if there is male DNA on the sheets...easy enough to see why. It's this easy.

 

[Cindizzi]

Too bad she didn't know what time. Doesn't appear it would have been 4 AM from the known data. Too bad we don't know which direction he was headed on 50 when he passed the surveillance camera on 50 near 285. That turn is a left turn coming from Puma Path home or a right turn off if coming from the Salida area plus I don't think we know exactly where the surveillance camera is located on 50. And if coming from Salida depending on where he was, it could have been faster not to use 50 all the way to 285 and connect up with 285 off 291 IMO. Just depends...

Page 47/129 of the AA
MG said “ around 4:00 a.m. “ she heard his truck.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user.../21CR78/21cr78 Morphew Redacted Affidavit.pdf

 

[Spartygirl]

Too bad she didn't know what time. Doesn't appear it would have been 4 AM from the known data. Too bad we don't know which direction he was headed on 50 when he passed the surveillance camera on 50 near 285. That turn is a left turn coming from Puma Path home or a right turn off if coming from the Salida area plus I don't think we know exactly where the surveillance camera is located on 50. And if coming from Salida depending on where he was, it could have been faster not to use 50 all the way to 285 and connect up with 285 off 291 IMO. Just depends...

BBM
MG said it was around 4 AM so she did know the approximate time she heard the truck.
She didn't see it, but heard it's distinctive sound, IIRC
21cr78 Morphew Redacted Affidavit.pdf (state.co.us)

 

[Momofthreeboys]

BBM
MG said it was around 4 AM so she did know the approximate time she heard the truck.
She didn't see it, but heard it's distinctive sound, IIRC
21cr78 Morphew Redacted Affidavit.pdf (state.co.us)

Right but as I mentioned 4 AM doesn’t fit the time of the known data and locations. She either has the time wrong or it wasn’t Barry’s truck. But I don’t think her claim of possibly hearing his truck is beneficial at that time claimed.

 

[sk716]

Not if , as the letter of intention states, LE and the DA were trying to withhold exculpatory evidence (this DNA ).

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

There wasn't any DNA on the sheets in the dryer. I am sorry that so many "journalists" are more worried about getting hits than providing factual information to the public. Because one of outlet dropped a headline claiming there is exculpatory evidence on her body.

(CBI Laboratory Results)
On June 3, 2020, the CBI Laboratory, hereafter CBI Lab, provided the results of DNA analysis for the CCSO case 20000911. Sixty-five evidence items, to include DNA buccal swabs from the Morphew family members, Andrew Moorman, REDACTED and others were listed. Of note, no workable DNA was recovered from the Bobcat blade, the PNUE-DART box or the dryer.

On August 31, 2020, SA Grusing reviewed the Lab results with CBI Lab Forensic Scientist Caitlin Rogers to discuss results relevant to this affidavit. The following items were noted:

The DNA on the bicycle seat (Item 5.1) included a mixture of four people: Suzanne being the primary, with Barry and one of the responding CCSO personnel (Carricato) being included. The fourth male is unknown.51

The DNA on the bicycle grips (Item 6.1) included a DNA mixture of four people: Suzanne and Sgt. Mullenax being primary contributors. Barry was excluded as a contributor.

The DNA on the bicycle brakes and handlebars (Item 7.1) included a mixture of four people: Suzanne, Deputy Brown and Deputy Himschoot were primary contributors. Barry was excluded.

Page 44 of 129 Back to top of AA

The front driver door (Item 25 .l) of the 2015 white Land Rover (license plate CSU58l) was tested and the DNA was consistent with samples from Barry and Suzanne. REDACTED and REDACTED were excluded.52

A plastic hypodermic cover (Item 41), collected from the dryer, was tested by CBI for DNA. A low-level partial DNA mixture of two people was recovered, with Suzanne and REDACTED being possible contributors. Barry was excluded as a contributor.

A dart needle (Item 44.1), collected by CCSO, submitted as “dart from box in garage,” was swabbed and a partial DNA profile was developed, with REDACTED included as the contributor with “moderate”support.

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.

The interior cushions of the helmet (Item 49.2) were tested for DNA and a partial profile was developed. The mixture was more likely to involve Barry and Suzanne that corning from anyone else by a factor of 6.2 times.

52 This mixture is at least 40 sexdecillion ( 1 0″51) times more likely to be observed if it originated from Barry MORPHEW and Suzanne MORPHEW than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals [very strong support].​

So, I guess they didn't mention the glove box DNA in the AA, I wouldn't call it withholding, we got to hear about how Barry's DNA wasn't on any of the security cameras. If it didn't make it into the AA, it's because it wasn't a real match.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

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

There wasn't any DNA on the sheets in the dryer. I am sorry that so many "journalists" are more worried about getting hits than providing factual information to the public. Because one of outlet dropped a headline claiming there is exculpatory evidence on her body.

(CBI Laboratory Results)
On June 3, 2020, the CBI Laboratory, hereafter CBI Lab, provided the results of DNA analysis for the CCSO case 20000911. Sixty-five evidence items, to include DNA buccal swabs from the Morphew family members, Andrew Moorman, REDACTED and others were listed. Of note, no workable DNA was recovered from the Bobcat blade, the PNUE-DART box or the dryer.

On August 31, 2020, SA Grusing reviewed the Lab results with CBI Lab Forensic Scientist Caitlin Rogers to discuss results relevant to this affidavit. The following items were noted:

The DNA on the bicycle seat (Item 5.1) included a mixture of four people: Suzanne being the primary, with Barry and one of the responding CCSO personnel (Carricato) being included. The fourth male is unknown.51

The DNA on the bicycle grips (Item 6.1) included a DNA mixture of four people: Suzanne and Sgt. Mullenax being primary contributors. Barry was excluded as a contributor.

The DNA on the bicycle brakes and handlebars (Item 7.1) included a mixture of four people: Suzanne, Deputy Brown and Deputy Himschoot were primary contributors. Barry was excluded.

Page 44 of 129 Back to top of AA

The front driver door (Item 25 .l) of the 2015 white Land Rover (license plate CSU58l) was tested and the DNA was consistent with samples from Barry and Suzanne. REDACTED and REDACTED were excluded.52

A plastic hypodermic cover (Item 41), collected from the dryer, was tested by CBI for DNA. A low-level partial DNA mixture of two people was recovered, with Suzanne and REDACTED being possible contributors. Barry was excluded as a contributor.

A dart needle (Item 44.1), collected by CCSO, submitted as “dart from box in garage,” was swabbed and a partial DNA profile was developed, with REDACTED included as the contributor with “moderate”support.

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.

The interior cushions of the helmet (Item 49.2) were tested for DNA and a partial profile was developed. The mixture was more likely to involve Barry and Suzanne that corning from anyone else by a factor of 6.2 times.

52 This mixture is at least 40 sexdecillion ( 1 0″51) times more likely to be observed if it originated from Barry MORPHEW and Suzanne MORPHEW than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals [very strong support].​

So, I guess they didn't mention the glove box DNA in the AA, I wouldn't call it withholding, we got to hear about how Barry's DNA wasn't on any of the security cameras. If it didn't make it into the AA, it's because it wasn't a real match.

According to the news articles and known info the defense argument was the information on the dna was not given to them until after the preliminary but was known and discussed in August. This is information that is additional to arrest affidavit. There are definitely a few circumstantial claims that have changed between arrest affidavit and the preliminary and perhaps continue to change. We don’t know much about the dna or if it is significant to the case. We only know the claim that prosecution had a name of a person with a prior record. The late delivery is significant for the prosecution from a conduct perspective.