Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #87

[Boxer]

@Boxer Thx for your post explaining the connection.
Sometimes I'm a bit dense; sometimes I'm very dense.

Also,
I think the last thing she said about Barry was to Libler ... Something like "who knows where he is."

 

[HongKongPhooey]

In my neighborhood, according to strict HOA bylaws, we cannot use a line for hanging clothes to dry. We can't beat rugs that may allow debris to reach a neighboring home. We can't wash our cars in our driveway nor can our vehicles be worked on while on our property.

Do we know which section of the dryer was searched on the first go round? For me, it is just far too coincidental that a tranquilizing dart needle sheath was discovered at all. In fact, I will go so far as to assume that no one on the jury panel is going to ever expect to find a needle sheath from a tranquilizer dart inside their own clothes dryer.

Moreover, the burned items in the fireplace, the tranquilizer dart needle sheath, the cracked door frame, etal are highly incriminating when stacked together and placed alongside all of the other circumstantial evidence.

HOO

And this, your last point, is the key thing for me. Jury members are ordinary people, not legal eagles trying to create problems where there are none. They will IMO hear and see all of this and the picture will be very clear as to who killed Suzanne.

So, maybe the door was damaged another time, maybe the dart was left there months ago (although Barry coincidentally was binning something linked to it on bin run day), maybe a random offender dropped by for coffee and left half a cup then rummaged in the car's glove box, maybe Barry felt a chill, ran out of logs and burnt her diary instead, maybe Barry was fascinated by an elk herd in the pitch dark, maybe..

Or, maybe the jury will see how ridiculous it all is, as a whole.

JMO

 

[FromGermany1]

Perhaps for my benefit alone, I want to try to break down the parts to the laundry detail.

Barry claimed he hadn't used his tranquing equipment in Colorado, but then (probably when confronted with the recovery of the syringe cap) admitted to shooting two deer (who fell asleep and awakened hornless) from the breezeway (again probably to align his story with something LE told him).

If Suzanne's To Do list is legitimate, it isolates the cap essentially to that load of laundry, that day.

Of course it's possible Suzanne started that load in 2019 or on 5/6, but is it reasonable that Suzanne would leave clothes in the dryer for days or weeks on end? Especially in light of her To Do list. I suspect the list itself is time dependent--maybe a Saturday chore list or a Before the Girls Get Home list.

Also Suzanne had clothes in there. Did SHE combine sheets and clothes? I don't usually do that but I have done it, when I have a small linen load and a smaller clothing load and don't want to wait for two cycles.

Did Barry say he saw Suzanne's bike shorts or just shorts?

I wonder how many she had. If it was bike shorts in the dryer and bike shorts, recovered from her closet, as a scent item, that's two pairs.... I wonder if he rifled through the laundry to remove an actual and full biking ensemble. I suspect, whether he did or not, that he made absolute certain no one had opportunity to inventory her wardrobe, to note what might be missing (unless he removed one full set). The white shorts and string top, what became of them?

Let's back this up. Let's say Suzanne started laundry earlier. And finished. What would she have taken out of the dryer? The sheets. Some of her clothes, apparently. Any of his? Socks? Not his shorts, unless he had multiple identical pairs. (Of note, in all those hotel images, he had multiple wardrobe changes, different shirts-- but he may have changed his pants/shorts too -- he could have owned a dozen pairs of identical khaki shorts, two dozen pairs of identical jeans.)

For the syringe cap to be in the dryer with laundry Suzanne started, I think we have to accept that Barry added the cap. What other vehicle than his shorts? (I wonder if Barry is a natural pocketer.) Doesn't make sense that the cap was placed in the wash with the sheets -- because why would Barry fill a syringe in that room? Not impossible however. Especially if he had been sleeping in the daughter's room. He admitted to sleeping on the guest room couch over snoring but maybe Suzanne booted him from her bedroom on 5/6). For more than snoring.

Suzanne may have been expecting Barry to do Mother's Day with her and the girls, before leaving in the late afternoon, for Denver. (To repair the wall with MG.) Suzanne may have been under the impression he'd be gone Sunday night and two or three additional nights... three or four nights she wouldn't have to sleep next to him, plus any during the girls' camping trip. Still, if he was sleeping in that room, he could have prepared the dart there, in the vicinity of the sheets, then gathered up by Suzanne, syringe cap unnoticed. But.... if he was sleeping in that bed, for Suzanne to change the sheets on Saturday makes no sense. Unless Suzanne had reason to believe that Barry was leaving for Denver on Saturday. Who knows what story to told her.... but if she did the sheets on Saturday and if she did it because Barry had been sleeping there, then she didn't expect him to be home on Saturday night! She may have had a huge willingness to be extra accommodating on Saturday because she believed she had a vacation coming -- vacation from him, that is. 5/9 or 5/10 through 5/12 or 5/13. Time to talk to the girls, without him....

Anyway, we have Barry somehow adding the cap to Suzanne's laundry.... and then Barry telling LE what he eventually saw in the dryer. Curious!! Why? Why did he look in the dryer? He said he was looking for socks. Favorite socks? His only socks? Chipmunk socks? If he says socks, I have to question it.

We know he knew there was laundry because he had to have added his shorts, so what did he remove?????? All his t-shirts? For his wardrobe changes? (But why wash them?)

IMO Barry took something out of the dryer. Because he needed to wear it or he needed to discard it. Not his shorts. Socks like he said (he was looking for)? His shirt? Underwear? A brown towel?

Between 5/9 and 5/10, Barry did a full cycle of laundry, and opened the dryer -- so something was important to him. And everything he didn't take, didn't.

What, what, what could be the significance?

What made him think to do laundry?????

Can any of you make sense of it?

My brain is on a spin cycle.

JMO

bbm

Speculation: BM wanted to wash something because of telltale traces/signs, for example his shorts and/or socks. Because he is so very stingy, he ran up the stairs to get the sheets off of MM1's bed in a hurry and added them to his shorts/socks/something, so he wouldn't have fully wasted the capacity of the machine. Of course he had seen Suzanne's to-do-list, control freak, that he is.

 

[FromGermany1]

Since the aerial helicopter/drone video over Puma Path happened early in the investigation, it seems likely that any setup for a clothesline would have remained in place and visible, and I don't recall seeing it. I suspect there wasn't one. MOO though.

Also, the spacious acreage is hardly relevant, since one would not install a clothesline far from the house.

Maybe, they had a collapsible rotary clothes line, which was still stored in the housekeeping room and would be put into a ground socket if required.

 

[FromGermany1]

And this, your last point, is the key thing for me. Jury members are ordinary people, not legal eagles trying to create problems where there are none. They will IMO hear and see all of this and the picture will be very clear as to who killed Suzanne.

So, maybe the door was damaged another time, maybe the dart was left there months ago (although Barry coincidentally was binning something linked to it on bin run day), maybe a random offender dropped by for coffee and left half a cup then rummaged in the car's glove box, maybe Barry felt a chill, ran out of logs and burnt her diary instead, maybe Barry was fascinated by an elk herd in the pitch dark, maybe..

Or, maybe the jury will see how ridiculous it all is, as a whole.

JMO

Suzanne long ago would have found the dart capsule in the dryer, if it got there before MD weekend. The filter must be cleaned after each drying process, afaik. Btw, I don't know, in which way the capsule was able to get into the filter. I have only lint/dust in there.

 

[mrjitty]

Perhaps for my benefit alone, I want to try to break down the parts to the laundry detail.

Barry claimed he hadn't used his tranquing equipment in Colorado, but then (probably when confronted with the recovery of the syringe cap) admitted to shooting two deer (who fell asleep and awakened hornless) from the breezeway (again probably to align his story with something LE told him).

The truth is actually even worse than this, as I discovered, when I went through the AA in detail

Agent Grusing really stitched him up!

10 March 21 Barry is confronted with fact that "a tranq dart having been fired “in or around the house.” Barry first admits to the FBI agents that he has used tranq darts on the 2 deer perhaps as recently as "April 2020".

5 April 21 - Barry is first confronted about the evidence of a tranq dart found "inside". Barry confesses to firing such a dart from the breezeway which looked on to where SM was sunbathing .

22 April, 21 Barry admits to disposing of the tranqs (no tranq chemicals recovered from his property). This is the interview where he comes close to confessing SM was tranqed. He says he last used the chemicals late April of 2020. He is confronted with the sheath found in the dryer and says it is nothing to do with him.

28 May 21 In a recorded interview with state police, Barry says he never used the tranqs in Colorado​

So you can truly see the lizard brain at work here - played by a maestro.

The lies on 10 March come easy enough, because it's partly based on truth. Grusing knows from Ted Turner that Barry was raising deer for sale in Indiana. But as Barry hasn't sold deer to anyone, he has to pretend he collects the horns. Barry even allows for "darts" to be found - this is highly significant IMO

So, things like that, in my head, ‘What should I say?’ And nobody even asked me about that tranq dart, but you’re gonna find tranq darts around my property because I’ve done that.”

Barry doesn't know what they found, but assumes it must be an actual dart, so claims that there are some lying around. Grusing encourages that thinking. No doubt Barry stews in the next days over whether he dropped a dart, and if so where. What is important is he is clearly open to the possibility of the agents finding a spent dart.

The 5 April interview I assume is a moment of pure panic. This is the first time Grusing reveals the dart is actually inside. IMO, with only seconds to think, Barry reveals the shooting location as the place he thinks he most likely dropped it.

This makes some sense IMO, because he must have been considering multiple possibilities and needed to cover all angles. Have the FBI recovered the spent dart, or an unfired one? I believe the spent dart is designed to drop out of the target after a short period. But surely Barry recovered that one and knows where it is... or...? Did he have more than one dart with him? As a backup? Or has he spilled one later somehow during his cleanup? Are the agents bluffing?

22 April is where the trap is sprung.

They never found a dart at all. Rather a tranq needle sheath. In the dryer. They come close to a confession in this interview because he realises they've got him.

It must be a psychologically crushing moment where he realises both how he messed up, and that they know.

(I know this is old hat to some of you, but I wanted to post this for later reference).

Refs
Barry Morphew Redacted Arrest Affidavit – Find Suzanne Morphew

 

[mrjitty]

And this, your last point, is the key thing for me. Jury members are ordinary people, not legal eagles trying to create problems where there are none. They will IMO hear and see all of this and the picture will be very clear as to who killed Suzanne.

So, maybe the door was damaged another time, maybe the dart was left there months ago (although Barry coincidentally was binning something linked to it on bin run day), maybe a random offender dropped by for coffee and left half a cup then rummaged in the car's glove box, maybe Barry felt a chill, ran out of logs and burnt her diary instead, maybe Barry was fascinated by an elk herd in the pitch dark, maybe..

Or, maybe the jury will see how ridiculous it all is, as a whole.

JMO

Good post Phooey!

This is exactly how the jury are required by law to handle circumstantial evidence. I call it the "turnip juice rule" - based on a different case I will not name.

Let's say there is a locked room where a murder victim has bleed profusely. Let's imagine a bathroom with blood in it, and a partial bloody footprint. Let's suppose, luminol reveals bloody footprints in the hallway between these locations.

Now luminol can actually be triggered by things other than blood. So let's speculate that someone spilt turnip juice, and made footprints in the hallway, some other day.

Now obviously it is possible to speculate away every piece of circumstantial evidence individually in this way. But that is a logical fallacy, and a properly instructed jury will be directed not to do so. Rather the jury must ask itself what facts it accepts - blood in the bedroom, blood in the bathroom, luminol footprints in the hallway, and reach natural and obvious inferences based on all the facts. i.e. probably a bloody person in the bedroom walked to the bathroom.

This should be contrasted with forensic evidence that proves the footprint was not actually blood. If that were shown, the jury has to take it into account.

This is a critical distinction because defence counsel is not allowed to speculate away circumstantial evidence. And in this case, only Barry or some other witness with direct knowledge would be allowed to offer an explanation for the sheath in the dryer.

tldr; the rules of evidence don't allow the defence to henpeck the circumstantial evidence to death via speculation

 

[mrjitty]

bbm

Speculation: BM wanted to wash something because of telltale traces/signs, for example his shorts and/or socks. Because he is so very stingy, he ran up the stairs to get the sheets off of MM1's bed in a hurry and added them to his shorts/socks/something, so he wouldn't have fully wasted the capacity of the machine. Of course he had seen Suzanne's to-do-list, control freak, that he is.

He might have been worried about the tranq chemical traces from handling the darts? Possibly also soil traces etc

 

[Megnut]

This is a guy who actually sat down at some point and ate steak.

I have to conclude that he did laundry because, in some capacity, it served his needs.

I'm a little surprised he knew how.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

This is a guy who actually sat down at some point and ate steak.

I have to conclude that he did laundry because, in some capacity, it served his needs.

I'm a little surprised he knew how.

JMO

The steak might have been his little celebration

 

[sk716]

The truth is actually even worse than this, as I discovered, when I went through the AA in detail

Agent Grusing really stitched him up!

10 March 21 Barry is confronted with fact that "a tranq dart having been fired “in or around the house.” Barry first admits to the FBI agents that he has used tranq darts on the 2 deer perhaps as recently as "April 2020".

5 April 21 - Barry is first confronted about the evidence of a tranq dart found "inside". Barry confesses to firing such a dart from the breezeway which looked on to where SM was sunbathing .

22 April, 21 Barry admits to disposing of the tranqs (no tranq chemicals recovered from his property). This is the interview where he comes close to confessing SM was tranqed. He says he last used the chemicals late April of 2020. He is confronted with the sheath found in the dryer and says it is nothing to do with him.

28 May 21 In a recorded interview with state police, Barry says he never used the tranqs in Colorado​

So you can truly see the lizard brain at work here - played by a maestro.

The lies on 10 March come easy enough, because it's partly based on truth. Grusing knows from Ted Turner that Barry was raising deer for sale in Indiana. But as Barry hasn't sold deer to anyone, he has to pretend he collects the horns. Barry even allows for "darts" to be found - this is highly significant IMO



Barry doesn't know what they found, but assumes it must be an actual dart, so claims that there are some lying around. Grusing encourages that thinking. No doubt Barry stews in the next days over whether he dropped a dart, and if so where. What is important is he is clearly open to the possibility of the agents finding a spent dart.

The 5 April interview I assume is a moment of pure panic. This is the first time Grusing reveals the dart is actually inside. IMO, with only seconds to think, Barry reveals the shooting location as the place he thinks he most likely dropped it.

This makes some sense IMO, because he must have been considering multiple possibilities and needed to cover all angles. Have the FBI recovered the spent dart, or an unfired one? I believe the spent dart is designed to drop out of the target after a short period. But surely Barry recovered that one and knows where it is... or...? Did he have more than one dart with him? As a backup? Or has he spilled one later somehow during his cleanup? Are the agents bluffing?

22 April is where the trap is sprung.

They never found a dart at all. Rather a tranq needle sheath. In the dryer. They come close to a confession in this interview because he realises they've got him.

It must be a psychologically crushing moment where he realises both how he messed up, and that they know.

(I know this is old hat to some of you, but I wanted to post this for later reference).

Refs
Barry Morphew Redacted Arrest Affidavit – Find Suzanne Morphew

Ret. SA Grusing is a master at being a sympathetic ear. I watched Wild Crimes recently, Grusing is interviewed a lot in it. It's so much more fun to read the AA with Grusing's accompanying expressions in my head, now.

 

[sk716]

The steak might have been his little celebration

I think it's what was immediately available and what he knew how to cook. I don't know if he even attempted to add a vegetable, all the proof you would really need to prove Suzanne didn't share in that steak.

The plate in the dishwasher was a mistake. He was just going through the motions, cook steak, eat steak, put plate and silverware in dishwasher as he has been trained to do through years of conditioning.

 

[Kingsley]

I haven’t seen a clothesline even in my rural area since the 60s and those people are long deceased. I can’t imagine in a jury of 12 too many people have the luxury of running to the dryer the minute the dryer buzzes to prevent wrinkles in their sheets. Maybe Suzanne had that luxury of time as a SAHM who knows. I can only imagine since I have never gone that route in life. I really think it was just as it appears…on her to do list and she washed and dried a load at some point and never emptied the dryer. The small needle sheath that was found later could have been in the dryer for a long, long time. LE missed it the first go round and all we know is that another le member was in the dryer at a later date and discovered it. So like the fire in the fireplace and the crack in the door frame it is very speculative to assume those 3 situations can be proved to have occurred that weekend from what we know. I of course do not know what prosecution will be able to use at trial but so far it feels to me their strongest argument would be the location information. Hopefully the re-do prosecution is doing on the discovery unearths some additional facts.

To add to your point, I think the cap has to somehow be tied to BM's clothing that he was seen wearing. Without that tie to that weekend, the case, IMO, becomes significantly weaker. No body, no physical evidence of SM's death, and now no probable weapon. I think we are left with SM's silence after BM's arrival home and possibly (because I can imagine a cheap person doing this) the disposal of "garbage" at multiple commercial property dumpsters.
And, yes, I do believe he is responsible. I'm just thinking of the effect of loss of "means" evidence on the case.
IMO.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

To add to your point, I think the cap has to somehow be tied to BM's clothing that he was seen wearing. Without that tie to that weekend, the case, IMO, becomes significantly weaker. No body, no physical evidence of SM's death, and now no probable weapon. I think we are left with SM's silence after BM's arrival home and possibly (because I can imagine a cheap person doing this) the disposal of "garbage" at multiple commercial property dumpsters.
And, yes, I do believe he is responsible. I'm just thinking of the effect of loss of "means" evidence on the case.
IMO.

Unfortunately they won't be able to tie it to that day, his clothes etc. Agree. Nor will they be able to tie the fire or the door jamb crack to a specific time. Not only can the needle sheath not directly tie to the theory, it was not found the first time through the dryer and there is no indication how long it had been in there and it had Morphew DNA but not Barry Morphew DNA and it probably went through a wash cycle at some point to be in the dryer. The whole "dryer" situation is weak in general especially since it was on Suzanne's to-do list to do laundry and it's highly plausible she did expect her kids and friend to stay the night before returning home so washed the sheets so they were fresh and clean. The entire speculation that occurred at preliminary that he was running around the house at lighting speed with a tranquilizer gun is going to be a tough one. I'm kind of secretly hoping they modify their speculation somewhat. I think the garbage dumps are tricky too because they have such minimal video of the actual stops, he's known to dump his garbage here and there and the documentation says his truck was messy and dirty.... but I do think that as part of the timeline story of Barry and of Suzanne that is what this case will be based on at trial who was where and when on Saturday and Sunday. I also wish they spend more time with the loose ends...the missing towel and how they know it is missing, what clothes were in the closet of Suzanne and what might be missing those sorts of things that are real and tangible. Prosecution really has nothing else that we know of.

 

[FromGermany1]

Ret. SA Grusing is a master at being a sympathetic ear. I watched Wild Crimes recently, Grusing is interviewed a lot in it. It's so much more fun to read the AA with Grusing's accompanying expressions in my head, now.

Barry basks in the fact, that someone is listening "sympathetically". It doesn't bother BM at all, constantly to say "you guys" in an amicable way. So it seems. That's, how he probably always is treating men (if he's not fighting with them), looking for allies all the time.

 

[Skigh]

Unfortunately they won't be able to tie it to that day, his clothes etc. Agree. Nor will they be able to tie the fire or the door jamb crack to a specific time. Not only can the needle sheath not directly tie to the theory, it was not found the first time through the dryer and there is no indication how long it had been in there and it had Morphew DNA but not Barry Morphew DNA and it probably went through a wash cycle at some point to be in the dryer. The whole "dryer" situation is weak in general especially since it was on Suzanne's to-do list to do laundry and it's highly plausible she did expect her kids and friend to stay the night before returning home so washed the sheets so they were fresh and clean. The entire speculation that occurred at preliminary that he was running around the house at lighting speed with a tranquilizer gun is going to be a tough one. I'm kind of secretly hoping they modify their speculation somewhat. I think the garbage dumps are tricky too because they have such minimal video of the actual stops, he's known to dump his garbage here and there and the documentation says his truck was messy and dirty.... but I do think that as part of the timeline story of Barry and of Suzanne that is what this case will be based on at trial who was where and when on Saturday and Sunday. I also wish they spend more time with the loose ends...the missing towel and how they know it is missing, what clothes were in the closet of Suzanne and what might be missing those sorts of things that are real and tangible. Prosecution really has nothing else that we know of.

It is amazing what forensics can do.I think it is highly likely that they will have a very good idea when the journal was burnt and how recently the door was damaged.
I also hope that the washing machine and dryer had electronic data which recorded the last time they were used .

 

[Megnut]

Why'd Barry even admit to accessing the dryer?

He is his worst defense.

JMO

 

[PaulaDC]

I haven’t seen a clothesline even in my rural area since the 60s and those people are long deceased. I can’t imagine in a jury of 12 too many people have the luxury of running to the dryer the minute the dryer buzzes to prevent wrinkles in their sheets. Maybe Suzanne had that luxury of time as a SAHM who knows. I can only imagine since I have never gone that route in life. I really think it was just as it appears…on her to do list and she washed and dried a load at some point and never emptied the dryer. The small needle sheath that was found later could have been in the dryer for a long, long time. LE missed it the first go round and all we know is that another le member was in the dryer at a later date and discovered it. So like the fire in the fireplace and the crack in the door frame it is very speculative to assume those 3 situations can be proved to have occurred that weekend from what we know. I of course do not know what prosecution will be able to use at trial but so far it feels to me their strongest argument would be the location information. Hopefully the re-do prosecution is doing on the discovery unearths some additional facts.

Not that it matters but I have one so do my neighbors but we're in FL. I wouldn't hang sheets but hang things of value that I don't want ruined in a hot dryer. But I don't have anywhere near the wealth of BM so my purchases are valuable to me. moo

 

[TIGER0822]

I agree. I think one has to consider how reasonable Barry’s behavior was given that this was over a very limited range of time. During this period, he was: working at a job site, buying hot tub chemicals, replacing Bobcat blade, shooting chipmunks with a gun, eating chili, looking for a turkey that was shot months prior, running around his property, eating a steak, recruiting his work team for the job, washing clothes, driving after sighted elk, driving from Maysville to Broomfield, making 5 trash dumps, passing an extended stay in the parking lot of Men’s Warehouse, changing his outfits multiple times, hanging out in a hotel room by himself for 5 hours, working in Broomfield for 15 minutes, looking for a free breakfast, calling his neighbor Jeanne, and driving back to Maysville from Broomfield.

From my own life, if I take today as an example, I: woke up, drove to work, worked for nine hours, ate lunch, drove home, cooked and ate dinner, and later walked my dog.

Ummmm...one of these things is not like the other.

Agreed and Mr. bilocation’s truck was allegedly heard outside MG house at 4.30, while he was sleeping in bed with SM after a ‘perfect night’, and somewhere in that time vincity his car door was being opened and closed. Whew even the thought of it exhausts me!

 

[TIGER0822]

I agree. I think one has to consider how reasonable Barry’s behavior was given that this was over a very limited range of time. During this period, he was: working at a job site, buying hot tub chemicals, replacing Bobcat blade, shooting chipmunks with a gun, eating chili, looking for a turkey that was shot months prior, running around his property, eating a steak, recruiting his work team for the job, washing clothes, driving after sighted elk, driving from Maysville to Broomfield, making 5 trash dumps, passing an extended stay in the parking lot of Men’s Warehouse, changing his outfits multiple times, hanging out in a hotel room by himself for 5 hours, working in Broomfield for 15 minutes, looking for a free breakfast, calling his neighbor Jeanne, and driving back to Maysville from Broomfield.

From my own life, if I take today as an example, I: woke up, drove to work, worked for nine hours, ate lunch, drove home, cooked and ate dinner, and later walked my dog.

Ummmm...one of these things is not like the other.

Agreed and Mr. bilocation’s truck was allegedly heard outside MG house at 4.30, while he was ‘sleeping in bed with SM’ after a ‘perfect night’, and somewhere in that time vincity his car door was being opened and closed. Whew even the thought of it exhausts me!