I don’t think he killed her with a dart gun. That thing was being held together with zip ties and probably wasn’t functional to any practical degree. I don’t think he was chasing her around the house either, wifi wobble is a thing and can show someone running around in a house-sized area when they’re actually sitting still the whole time.
I think they argued, he strangled her, and dumped her body (dissolved or not) close to but not on the Puma Path property.
[With respect, kindly consider all and everything that follows as based upon only my personal beliefs, understandings and/or opinions, as may be appropriate in a particular context. I shall be most obliged!]
Much recent dialog has been focused on the penultimate fatal chaos at the Morphew residence. Having considered these nightmarish narratives, with hesitancy I'm about to offer yet one more.
To begin, a "long gun" is not a good choice for anticipated use in limited /restricted spaces. The Morphew fully-furnished master bedroom comes to mind.
Even Barry's "short gun" could become a problem there. Once that single dart is fired, either rifle, short or long, is now functionally reduced to a primitive bludgeon. In the ensuing, certain chaos, Barry would now have to additionally make sure that his weapon did not reach the hand(s) of a desperate, determined Suzanne... where it could then find frantic use in myriad kinds of destructive, clue-producing rage. Obviously, its forceful use in actual battery [eg. bludgeoning Suzanne] would result in a crime scene forensic field day. Presently we know of no evidence of any such tumult. Thus, the theorized indoor dart gun use, I believe, leaves unaddressed the not unreasonable prospect of an interior household maelstrom.
Presently, I'm thinking Barry eschewed using his short gun, even tho' it might well have found a place in his initial plan(s). The setting for action had now changed, markedly so, with Suzanne's panicked flight and resistance.
Tranquilizer attack scenarios envisioned in the master bedroom did not
involve a gun. IMOHO - just to emphasize.
Developing further, little if any of the foregoing can be germane unless and until Barry 'makes the shot', that being a hit holding securely in the right spot* on his target.
While we may be certain Barry "never misses" - he's said so on the record - we've had the benefit of responses from professionals in veterinary, wildlife, and animal husbandry pursuits relating to the characteristics of various types of tranquilizers and their uses. If I recall correctly, I understand that when shooting a dart to sedate an animal, one should aim for and hit a substantial muscular region, difficult for a startled animal to reach or otherwise/disturb before the injection has taken effect.
All considered to this point, I must ask:
What could possibly go wrong with a plan requiring one to hit with just a single shot an optimal muscular region* on a frantically moving Suzanne fighting you for her life?
At this point I adhere to the widely discussed 'Tranquilizer Theory', but with some variation(s).
(Advice: Possibly disturbing, hypothetical text follows.)
I particularly reason that Barry had to immobilize Suzanne, bodily,wherever he cornered her
, using his sheer weight and strength; he sustained defensive wounds in so doing.
He thereupon positioned her face down in such fashion as, once in total control, he could and did free one hand long enough to retrieve a tranquilizing dart from his person, pulling off the protective sheathe (perhaps) with his teeth.
He then in one motion struck and held the dosed needle into such of Suzanne's musculature as was in this position of control readily accessible to him. Immediately thereafter he resumed his initial control positioning, persisting so long as necessary
* until his evil objective - his wife's incapacitation or death - was at hand.
To finish, a brief aside wrt the capital murder element, "with deliberation".
In my opinion, this * 'persisting so long as necessary'
interval, during which Barry could have relented but chose not to
, may well be sufficient evidence of precisely that: Homicide with deliberation
If this is the case, the prosecution must, in closing, emphasize Barry Morphew's chosen 'interval of deliberate persistence". And this so that, in his instructions to the jury, the judge may be more likely to restate this circumstance as properly in evidence, and one which the members are allowed to consider during deliberations.