Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #98

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
justtrish said:
I sure hope the Ritter's have some support there. I imagine them being retired to this beautiful place. Sweet nice caring neighbors that look out for one another. Then something so awful happens and their other neighbors put up the murderer they now have a protection order against. I don't think I'd want to live there anymore. They didn't deserve this either. I really am still surprised the judge allowed him to live so close and surprised the Cushman's support him enough to allow them to stay there knowing it's so close to whatever happened and to people (I assume they also know - the Ritter's) that Barry isn't allow to have contact with. I genuinely am curious about their thoughts on it. Do they believe he is innocent? Do they more support the daughters and so by that support Barry or does Barry have a story to tell them that sounds believable? It's one thing to want to believe someone is innocent and another level of support to allow that person to stay in your home. I don't understand many things about this case and that is definitely one of them.
Click to expand...
MOO BM made the local clique.
 
I wish to share a secret, please.
When I first heard about this strange and unusual murder involving a beautiful, successful couple from Indiana, who meet in 1988, I slowly began to learn how they spent their youth with nights whispering and laughing while riding around on the green golf course. Barry was known to cruise around town while flexing his muscles in a shiny car. I envisioned Suzanne listening to Christian music while under a clear, moonlit sky as she sought peace from the heaven above or when she was jumping and cheering the high school football teams on to a victory.

Suzanne possessed a dazzling smile and sparkling blue eyes who could instantly draw you in with her gentleness. Her sister told us that Suzanne was a rose among thorns. I believe her.

I wondered if they listened to John Cougar, who was a mere 100 miles down the road in Seymour, IN, at parties attended while in high school. Once, when the opportunity presented itself for me to be in Bloomington, Indiana, I sought a glimpse of John Cougar Mellencamp's magnificent home on Monroe Lake. I expected a little pink house. Nestled amongst tall trees, it is one Suzanne would surely adore with a pool overlooking the turquoise lake and not a boulder in sight.

There's a favorite quote of his that is apropos for the murder of Suzanne.
“Be careful of those who kill in Jesus' name, he don't believe in killing at all.” - JCM

John was a miracle baby born with spina bifida in 1951 while Suzanne's birthdate is April 30, 1971. Barry will be on trial for her murder 5 days after we celebrate her birthday. We don't know where her earthly body is located because Barry has it hidden from our view.

One evening, back in 2020, I found myself with an urge to listen to John's music on YT. I pray this 1981 recorded live performance does not offend anyone yet brings a smile as we imagine sweet Suzanne as a young lady, with a promising life before her. I wish it all had come true for her.

 
Tumbleweed said:
I am wondering if there IS more telematic or phone data to be had. Several people have indicated they think that the defense cherry picked a subset of the data that was available and submitted that subset to the court as exhibits. I was thinking this as well. If more data actually exists, and the prosecution needs to use it in court, wouldn't they need to submit that data to the court too? The have only submitted photos, texts, and maps with pins indicating time-stamped locations for the prelim. Would they need to submit it pre-trial or can they introduce it at trial? Thanks, I just don't know how this stuff works.
Click to expand...


First the data set has to be given to the defence as part of the discovery. Prosecution and defence experts may analyse the data - those reports and analysis need to be provided to the other side as part of discovery before trial.

For the trial, the prosecution will exhibit the relevant parts of the Telematics data set and/or any special reports.

When i went to law school, the relevant witnesses would then produce these exhibits into evidence. The process is somewhat mechanical due to the need to establish foundation, authenticity, chain and custody etc

So the prosecution doesn't just say "here's the telematics judge!"

Rather a witness has to establish that BM's truck was seized. Then another witness has to establish that the telematics were downloaded from the truck and that the data exhibited is in fact the data recovered from the truck ... etc. Of course in practice a lot of this stuff is streamlined to avoid wasting time calling every witness under the sun on matters both sides agree on. So for example, one of the investigating officers produces multiple things.

At least that's how i learned it all.
 
What I am hoping for is a "McStay" digital moment as far as the Telematics go compared to the prelim.

Not a bombshell, as we know the broad strokes, but rather where the deep dive detail takes the case against the accused to the next level.

At the prelim, the Telematics were used to support the broad case against BM. The missing mileage. The dump runs. Inconsistencies with his version. Suspicious activity in the dead of night before he said he got up.

I am hoping that expert analysis might shine a light on these aspects

1. Was Fordpass or similar app installed on BM's phone? If so, was it deleted?

2. Was trip data tracked? Was this data ever wiped from cloud and app? If so when?

3. Using previous 'normal' days as benchmark, how does the data tracked for the Broomfield trip compare?

4. Is there any evidence that the Sync/GPS function and/or fuse were tampered with?

5. Under what circumstances can the strange power event be recreated?

Some or all of these elements could be very important IMO.
 
It's incredibly frustrating that the court does not post the documents on the docket site. Aren't these supposed to be public records?

Do we know if it was an actual motion filed by the defense, properly date-stamped and entered into the case file? I would hope Ashley Franco actually verified with the court that it was a motion and not a draft of a motion.

IMO, the defense is very busy trying to already sow seed of reasonable doubt everywhere.
 
In my opinion defense general strategy has been in place for months. If you look at the team it is Iris and Dru for criminal, they have an appeals attorney and civil attorney(s). They have been laying the ground work with every move every motion for the criminal trial, and the appeal should he get convicted and the civil trial which civil is generally all about money. Rather than desperation that people are speculating, it is my opinion that it is thought through and the late discovery is additive to their strategy. Not everything they have done is only related to the criminal trial...but a slow accumulation of on the record information. Since the day of the arrest prosecution's entire problem has been because they weren't organized, it feels like they never really thought through the strategy after the arrest warrant knowing as they must have that things in the arrest warrant that supported their theory would not be allowed and perhaps in all the changes with the prosecution there wasn't a point person who would remember what all was contained in the discovery or thought it wouldn't matter. Obviously I'm just second guessing...but it's where my mind has gone for a long time. I have no doubt those motions were filed that KKTV has possession of and were filed before KKTV got them. There is another motions hearing next week but I'm losing track of how many motions have not yet been addressed or if there will be a need for yet another motions hearing in early April.
 
Seattle1 said:
I dunno -- SM had a pretty spendy bike and I don't see her scrimping on the helmet. Wouldn't be surprised if her helmet was above the standard. In other words, the hard shell is built to protect yet slide on impact.

The Ideal Bicycle Helmet

Standards in the US have evolved over more than two decades since the original ANSI Z90.4-1984 standard was adopted in 1984. ANSI let its standard lapse rather than update it, and the ASTM bicycle helmet standard took its place for some years. Now all helmets manufactured for the US market after 1999 must by law meet the Consumer Product Safety Commission's standard (CPSC). So you should be looking for a helmet with a sticker inside that says it meets the CPSC standard. There are also the Snell Foundation's bicycle helmet standards. Some manufacturers are still using Snell's older B-90 standard (introduced in 1990) which is comparable to CPSC. But Snell's newer B-95 standard is the most stringent standard in the market -- more difficult to meet than the ASTM or CPSC standards -- and ensures that the helmet has been certified by the independent Snell Foundation labs. We would prefer a Snell B-95 helmet, but we would not worry much about the differences between that and a CPSC helmet. And some day we would like to see the CPSC standard improved to require more coverage and a softer landing.

5. Outer Shell
In a crash you want an interface with the road that is smooth, hard, round and slick. That keeps your head from snagging, which can add to the severity of the impact and may even jerk your neck. The elongated "aero" style has a tail on the rear than could shove the helmet aside when you hit, leaving your head unprotected. Professor Hugh Hurt raised this question again, based on both testing problems and field reports of injury from helmets being pushed aside.
There are very few hard shell helmets like the 1970's models, primarily because they were so heavy and expensive to manufacture. Only one company makes them today in true ventilated bicycle styles, Hopus Technologies, and their updated models show what you can still do with ABS hard shells. The thin shells on today's market are nearly as good in sliding resistance, and some of them are evolving into slightly harder shells now as the manufacturers try to open up more vent area and rely more on the shell for impact strength. Vents are necessary, but must be smoothly faired into the helmet shell. We advise consumers to avoid any helmet with unnecessary fashion ridges on the outside, or protruding snaps for visors, or any other feature that could cause the shell to snag. This is an easy item for a consumer to assess, as long as you keep in mind that you want your head to slide on impact. We hope to amend the ASTM standard some day to add a requirement to measure sliding resistance of the shell. We have put up the lab study that established the value of a round, smooth, slick outer surface if you want to see the scientific data.
Click to expand...
speculation only...but BM could easily have pulled over to the edge of the embankment, and dropped the helmet arms length onto the turf, where it simply rolled down.....it didn't have to be thrown. OTOH, I have not seen a photo of the helmet when found in its original location.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 58 more.
Total: 3,778 (members: 59, guests: 3,719)

Online statistics

Members online
59
Guests online
3,719
Total visitors
3,778
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,398
Messages
17,968,359
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top