CO CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice* #102

Status
Not open for further replies.

CGray123

"Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional."
Joined
May 20, 2021
Messages
652
Reaction score
12,173
I said at the beginning that no body circumstantial cases are difficult to prove, even with a competent prosecutor. I still believe this to be true and I think that what has transpired in this case has proven that to be true.

Is there evidence? Sure. But it is not enough, and deep down inside, most people know that. Even Linda Stanley, which is why she dismissed the case.
BBM. I respectfully but strongly disagree. The bolded sentence is a feeling, not a fact. OP is one of a small handful of WSers posting who believe there is not enough evidence to convict BM of murdering SM. Judge L changed the venue because he believed that such a large portion of the Chaffee County population had read the AA and concluded BM was a murderer, BM was unlikely to get a fair trial unless the venue was changed.
 

GatorFL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
1,633
Reaction score
10,515
Website
www.ferrarichat.com
BBM. I respectfully but strongly disagree. The bolded sentence is a feeling, not a fact. OP is one of a small handful of WSers posting who believe there is not enough evidence to convict BM of murdering SM. Judge L changed the venue because he believed that such a large portion of the Chaffee County population had read the AA and concluded BM was a murderer, BM was unlikely to get a fair trial unless the venue was changed.
We will have to disagree. Is there circumstantial evidence? Yep. As we know, cops can jinn up plenty of circumstantial stuff. Doesn't mean it's real, or relevant.

The venue change is a whole other matter.

IMO, Linda Stanley lost control of the case when the AA was released. As soon as that happened, it spun out of her control. She thought time was on her side and she thought she was going to be able to substantiate what was in the AA. The public was loudly on her side. But as we know, she failed. She would not have the chance to prove anything because her biggest blunder was that she could not even get her expert witnesses credentialed into the trial on time, despite several warnings.

The AA also caused the public to be prejudiced against Barry. Here are a couple of quotes:

"Eleventh Judicial District Court Judge Ramsey Lama stated in the order, “Because of the size of the community and the pervasive negative pretrial publicity since Suzanne Morphew’s disappearance, the Court finds that a fair trial cannot take place in Chaffee County.”

He further stated, “This is a high profile case in a relatively small county with a small jury pool. The media saturation is high.”


"The judge also noted that a 129-page affidavit has been released publicly and said it contained information that was "prejudicial" that would not be admissible during the trial."


Regarding that second article, I wonder if Iris Eytan is thankful that the case remained in the incompetent Linda Stanley's office? I'm guessing she is.
 

MountainDad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
75
Reaction score
1,371
In hindsight, I am glad Linda Stanley charged BM when she did-even though it was probably premature . BM spent 5 months in jail, his charade story about the perfect marriage was exposed, the AA was eventually released which proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he is showing obvious signs of fatigue and stress from the atrocious act he committed, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. Now that Judge Llama has resigned due to physical problems, there is time to search a predetermined location and find her. If she is not found, I believe they will recharge with a more focused AA and come prepared for trial.
 

waldojabba

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
562
Reaction score
10,149
BBM. I respectfully but strongly disagree. The bolded sentence is a feeling, not a fact. OP is one of a small handful of WSers posting who believe there is not enough evidence to convict BM of murdering SM. Judge L changed the venue because he believed that such a large portion of the Chaffee County population had read the AA and concluded BM was a murderer, BM was unlikely to get a fair trial unless the venue was changed.
Yes IMO it's a false narrative.
The problem that led to getting this case dismissed (w/out prejudice btw), IMO was poor communication, lack of follow thru and timely execution by the DA and all LE sectors. My sense is there were politics being played out and some egos getting in the way along with of course covid which everybody likes to forget. So deadlines got missed etc - we all know the history.
But the problem was a personnel and adminstrative issue. Not an issue with the evidence. If the prosecution had not been sanctioned regarding the experts ( up to everyone to form an opinion whether the sactions were too severe or not severe enough) we would be at trial right now getting close to a verdict.
Same goes for Barry being out on bail. The prosecution/LE droppd the ball on the dna and could not address it properly at the Prelim, leaving the Judge with unanswered questions so he was obligated to grant bail. He really had no choice.
Its not that the evidence/case is so weak it has no chance. The prosecution just could not get out of their own way for whatever reason.
I know in my line of work we sit down and do a postmortem if a project goes sideways. Not to assess blame really but to learn from mistakes so as not to repeat them and better prepare for the next time. I cross my fingers that happened here or if not, when we go to trial on this case I want a special prosecutor brought in. If I were family I would insist on it.
ALL JUST IMO
 

Boxer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2017
Messages
7,084
Reaction score
67,365
Yes IMO it's a false narrative.
The problem that led to getting this case dismissed (w/out prejudice btw), IMO was poor communication, lack of follow thru and timely execution by the DA and all LE sectors. My sense is there were politics being played out and some egos getting in the way along with of course covid which everybody likes to forget. So deadlines got missed etc - we all know the history.
But the problem was a personnel and adminstrative issue. Not an issue with the evidence. If the prosecution had not been sanctioned regarding the experts ( up to everyone to form an opinion whether the sactions were too severe or not severe enough) we would be at trial right now getting close to a verdict.
Same goes for Barry being out on bail. The prosecution/LE droppd the ball on the dna and could not address it properly at the Prelim, leaving the Judge with unanswered questions so he was obligated to grant bail. He really had no choice.
Its not that the evidence/case is so weak it has no chance. The prosecution just could not get out of their own way for whatever reason.
I know in my line of work we sit down and do a postmortem if a project goes sideways. Not to assess blame really but to learn from mistakes so as not to repeat them and better prepare for the next time. I cross my fingers that happened here or if not, when we go to trial on this case I want a special prosecutor brought in. If I were family I would insist on it.
ALL JUST IMO
Agree. In my opinion a more professional DA would be in trial now winning a first, a no body case with no biological, only digital evidence.
But SO much digital evidence and lying.
I am sorry buy iy galls me to think of the glee that E&N must have had when they realized the DA was making such boffo errors.
 

Murphy1950

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
21,678
We will have to disagree. Is there circumstantial evidence? Yep. As we know, cops can jinn up plenty of circumstantial stuff. Doesn't mean it's real, or relevant.
Speaking only to…"Is there circumstantial evidence? Yep. As we know, cops can jinn up plenty of circumstantial stuff. Doesn't mean it's real, or relevant."

I guess the cops could have “ginned up’ the bullet on the floor, the bleach in the room smell, where the helmet was found what Morgan told them, the sheath in the dryer and some other things...

Cops didn’t “gin up” where the bike was located, a place she wasn't known to ever ride and without her sunglasses or camelbak. Cops didn’t “gin up” text messages from earlier in the week, Suzanne clearly stating she is ready to go. Cops didn’t ‘gin up’ her last text exchange with her friends or sister speaking of abuse. Cops didn’t “gin up” a discussion on a ‘spy pen”. Cops didn’t “gin up” Miles Harvey’s assessment of the marriage the very day she went missing (very day, if you believe Barry, the only witness BTW to her being alive Saturday evening onward…). Cops didn’t “gin up” Suzanne’s digital death. Cops didn’t “gin up’ Barry’s telematics.” Cops didn’t ‘gin up’ Barry’s stories, the chipmunks, elks made me do it etc. Cops didn’t “gin up” that crazy excuse for what occupied his time on Sunday. <modsnip>. IMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MassGuy

The Monsters Aren’t The Ones Beneath The Bed
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
21,699
Reaction score
509,175
Not being able to meet proof positive presumption great at the preliminary which tilts toward the prosecution was a huge warning shot to the prosecution that the case was more weak than strong at that time. Unfortunately they were never able to get more evidence or strengthen the case prosecutorially…if that is a word. Finally if or when they find Suzanne it has to be within a specific time period that fits known and accurate data or they won’t be able to prove Barry moved her…not necessarily that he didn’t murder her but that he didn’t move her that day. Comparing this to the Stauch case is apples and oranges.
They didn't need more evidence to strengthen the case, they just needed to be able to present the evidence they had.

Not having those expert witnesses be able to do their jobs (especially SA Hoyland), meant they couldn't reach their burden.

The evidence is there, and an overwhelming majority of people are able to see that.
 

Knox

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
24,484
Reaction score
138,619
I said at the beginning that no body circumstantial cases are difficult to prove, even with a competent prosecutor. I still believe this to be true and I think that what has transpired in this case has proven that to be true.

Is there evidence? Sure. But it is not enough, and deep down inside, most people know that. Even Linda Stanley, which is why she dismissed the case.
You left out an important detail in your last sentence - "without prejudice".
 

mrjitty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
7,453
Reaction score
52,298
Having posed the question of what the reasonable doubt is, I do find it interesting that no poster came back with any specific scenario that presents a reasonably possible exculpatory version.

Saying the evidence is weak, or that there were problems with the AA, or that Linda Stanley mishandled the case doesn't answer the question.

So is it that everyone here thinks he did it and got away with it?
 

mrjitty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
7,453
Reaction score
52,298
Not being able to meet proof positive presumption great at the preliminary which tilts toward the prosecution was a huge warning shot to the prosecution that the case was more weak than strong at that time. Unfortunately they were never able to get more evidence or strengthen the case prosecutorially…if that is a word. Finally if or when they find Suzanne it has to be within a specific time period that fits known and accurate data or they won’t be able to prove Barry moved her…not necessarily that he didn’t murder her but that he didn’t move her that day. Comparing this to the Stauch case is apples and oranges.

So based on the Judge's reasoning at the prelim, is it then your argument that the DNA is of the real killer, who struck on Saturday? I think you have said before you think there is an accomplice.
 

Momofthreeboys

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
14,730
So based on the Judge's reasoning at the prelim, is it then your argument that the DNA is of the real killer, who struck on Saturday? I think you have said before you think there is an accomplice.
I have no idea. I have never ruled out that Barry killed her as a possibility. I also didn’t take everything prosecution wrote or said as proof positive.
 

Trebor5591

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
724
Reaction score
5,534
The topic was not really about in “the eyes of the law”. We all know the answer to that one. The topic was : Given the evidence we know to date, what other scenario can you come up with other than BM killed the love of his life.

My opinion:

One possible scenario I can think of would be she was abducted while she was out bike riding, since they found her bike tossed down a slope.

Another less likely possibility would require looking at the phone of that "married with children" man she was having an affair with. Conceivable she could have implemented her plan to disappear in South America to meet up with the guy. Maybe she tossed her phone and bought a burner phone or a new phone to carry out her plan, paying for everything in cash. Maybe the guy came to his senses and decided he didn't want to abandon his family and embark on such a course. Could something have happened to her in South America? I don't think this is likely because SM's children have not heard from her, but would still like to know his phone shows no further contact with her or that he didn't get a new phone where contact is continuing.

In my opinion, without some solid evidence BM killed her, there is room for reasonable doubt. My opinion and conjecture.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" -- English jurist William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England", 1760.
 

Trebor5591

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
724
Reaction score
5,534
We are all aware and understand the legal standard of presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That obviously, to most anyway, does not mean someone actually IS innocent of a crime. Just as a ‘not guilty’ verdict handed down by a jury in a court of law doesn’t always equate to someone’s innocence. Case in point- OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony, both of whom
got away with murder, imo.

To believe BM innocent of any wrongdoing, one would have to believe an abductor(s) broke/forced/walked into the PP home Saturday afternoon after BM arrived home and while BM and SM were home alone together, abducted SM and amazingly left BM the only eyewitness to their crime, alive. That the abductor(s) also forced BM to:
*put his phone on Airplane mode at key moments during the commission of their crime
*stage SM’s fingernail gauges on his arm
*burn SM’s journal
*back his truck up in driveway later that evening, open and close truck doors during the night and early hours of Sunday morning
*stage SM’s bike
*stage SM’s helmet
*power SM’s phone down, destroy/discard/plant? phone
*go to Broomfield (for a non-job) on Sunday and dispose of trash at 5 different locations
*lie to the Ritter’s about where he was by saying he was at the wall with worker’s present when he got the emergency call
*sleep/clean/sit (take your pick, perhaps combo of all) in a Broomfield hotel room on Mother’s Day for 5-6 hours after claiming he went there to work on a big job and that he’d worked at all day
*continue to tell lie after lie to investigators
*continue to this very day to cover for the abductors that stole his wife of three decades, his angel.

Sounds like the plot of a very bad B movie.
I digress.

To believe SM was alive on Sunday, May 10, 2020 after BM left for Broomfield and went for a bike ride (she wasn’t and didn’t imo), and was abducted, all of the above still applies - that the abductors forced BM to do all those things and he is covering for the abductors????? Nonsense. Further, to believe SM, a low risk victim from a low crime area was riding a bike in an area she didn’t normally ride and didn’t take things that she normally took with her on her bike rides, and was abducted from said bike ride in said area in broad daylight without one soul hearing or seeing a da*n thing, defies all logic and credulity nor does it explain all the damning evidence against her husband. Not to mention, there’s just no way in he!! any abductor(s) abducting a woman from a bike ride in broad daylight are going to stick around staging items nor go to the victim’s house to burn their journal and touch the glovebox of their vehicle lolol. Abductor(s) MO, especially in broad daylight at risk of being seen- grab victim very quickly, in one fell swoop so to speak, and get tf outta dodge as quickly as possible. Period.

Mountain Lion got her, accident/got lost fell in river, Gone girl, hard NO to all of the above. In fact, no other scenario is plausible in this case as not only is there not a shred of evidence that points to any of those things having happened, it is virtually impossible to believe without any evidence pointing to such that something else ‘could have’ happened to Suzanne that can account for and/or explains away the evidence against BM. It simply cannot be done/the two cannot be reconciled, which is why we will continue to hear people (BM supporters, SM haters, people who for whatever reason don’t want to believe, are in denial, can’t see what’s right in front of them, can’t objectively and logically evaluate known evidence etc, etc) parroting the presumed innocent until proven guilty in court, rambling on about useless touch DNA that has been investigated and ruled out, how much the prosecution messed up, because imo there is literally no other argument they can make for something else having happened to Suzanne and explain all the lies and damning evidence against BM. He got a couple things right, knew enough not to leave physical evidence behind and hid/concealed SM very well. That does not mean everything else/totality of all the other evidence (yes circumstantial evidence is powerful) pointing directly at him, the fact he has NO ALIBI etc, etc, should be ignored nor that he should get away with his nefarious deeds. IMO, a murderer is walking free, for now. Having said that, I understand and am on board with the prosecution’s request for dismissal until they (hopefully) find SM’s remains to be able to prove in court without a doubt that SM is deceased and put the final nail in BM’s coffin.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzannei

My opinion.

All the stuff about him opening the doors to his truck and backing his truck up, etc., how does that proved he killed SM? And why does he even need to explain why he opened and shut the doors to his truck? Its his truck and he can open and close the doors as much as he wants, whenever he wants. Maybe he couldn't sleep and decided to clean his truck...

Sometime I try to use my phone and I find I cannot because it's on airplane mode. But I didn't knowingly put it on airplane mode, but somehow it was, and for no nefarious reason. Probably akin to butt-dialing someone. So maybe that happened to BM. Why does his phone being on airplane more mean he killed his wife?

I'm not even saying that he didn't kill his wife, maybe he did. But maybe he didn't. To arrest him and jail him for months based on such thin "evidence", it seems as if something is off.

Maybe I am just not seeing things correctly here. Will someone please explain how him opening and closing his care doors means he killed his wife?

Can anyone please write a coherent summary of why he killed his wife and how the "evidence" (car doors opening, phone on airplane mode, throwing trash into dumpster, bullet on floor, etc.., fits into his murder of his wife and the subsequent coverup? Without all the vitriol that makes so many posts unreadable?
 

Boxer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2017
Messages
7,084
Reaction score
67,365
My opinion.

All the stuff about him opening the doors to his truck and backing his truck up, etc., how does that proved he killed SM? And why does he even need to explain why he opened and shut the doors to his truck? Its his truck and he can open and close the doors as much as he wants, whenever he wants. Maybe he couldn't sleep and decided to clean his truck...

Sometime I try to use my phone and I find I cannot because it's on airplane mode. But I didn't knowingly put it on airplane mode, but somehow it was, and for no nefarious reason. Probably akin to butt-dialing someone. So maybe that happened to BM. Why does his phone being on airplane more mean he killed his wife?

I'm not even saying that he didn't kill his wife, maybe he did. But maybe he didn't. To arrest him and jail him for months based on such thin "evidence", it seems as if something is off.

Maybe I am just not seeing things correctly here. Will someone please explain how him opening and closing his care doors means he killed his wife?

Can anyone please write a coherent summary of why he killed his wife and how the "evidence" (car doors opening, phone on airplane mode, throwing trash into dumpster, bullet on floor, etc.., fits into his murder of his wife and the subsequent coverup? Without all the vitriol that makes so many posts unreadable?
I would say because lying is a form of confession.
 

rainbowshummingbird

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2020
Messages
629
Reaction score
14,055
My opinion.

All the stuff about him opening the doors to his truck and backing his truck up, etc., how does that proved he killed SM? And why does he even need to explain why he opened and shut the doors to his truck? Its his truck and he can open and close the doors as much as he wants, whenever he wants. Maybe he couldn't sleep and decided to clean his truck...

Sometime I try to use my phone and I find I cannot because it's on airplane mode. But I didn't knowingly put it on airplane mode, but somehow it was, and for no nefarious reason. Probably akin to butt-dialing someone. So maybe that happened to BM. Why does his phone being on airplane more mean he killed his wife?

I'm not even saying that he didn't kill his wife, maybe he did. But maybe he didn't. To arrest him and jail him for months based on such thin "evidence", it seems as if something is off.

Maybe I am just not seeing things correctly here. Will someone please explain how him opening and closing his care doors means he killed his wife?

Can anyone please write a coherent summary of why he killed his wife and how the "evidence" (car doors opening, phone on airplane mode, throwing trash into dumpster, bullet on floor, etc.., fits into his murder of his wife and the subsequent coverup? Without all the vitriol that makes so many posts unreadable?
It matters because he lied to law enforcement. He told them he was asleep, in bed, with Suzanne, during the truck events. Innocent people don’t lie, repeatedly, to law enforcement.

It’s also damning that Barry lied to the Ritters regarding his whereabouts BEFORE he was informed that Suzanne was missing.
 
Last edited:

CGray123

"Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional."
Joined
May 20, 2021
Messages
652
Reaction score
12,173
I don't disagree with that. My point is solely that there was no trial. The prosecution has not yet proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Barry Morphew killed his wife. Finding Suzanne obviously will help. What if she is deceased and her body is found in Utah or New Mexico or somewhere that might not attach to Barry? All the circumstantial evidence in the world isn't going to overcome that. That is just one possibility. My point was just that there are many people "waiting" for a trial before they scream "Barry did it" from the mountaintops...including family. Not that the family or anyone doesn't believe that Barry had means, motive and opportunity in private. We can only guess. It is still the job of the state via the prosecution to prove this...and that has not happened.
I haven't seen anyone screaming that BM is guilty from the mountaintops, but there is nothing to prevent people from holding or expressing a fact-based opinion that he killed his wife, as many people do in CC.

BM's neighbor and friend Martin Ritter explained to Judge L that he initially supported BM, but came to believe he was guilty after reading the arrest affidavit. This seems to be a widely held view among people who are familiar with the case. According to witness Abby Jefferson, “[a]fter Mr. Morphew was arrested for First Degree Murder, the once curious and suspicious community, overwhelmingly changed to believe that DA Stanley would not arrest Mr. Morphew unless he was the killer.” - “And, since the August preliminary hearings, the talk of the community is that Mr. Morphew murdered his wife.” See, Order Re Change of Venue, etc.

Sharing these views is natural and helpful to the local community: it's part of the way the community assesses its own safety and informs its members about risks, so they can protect themselves and one another. It's one reason AAs are made public notwithstanding the potential adverse effect on a fair trial in the affected community. It helps to put "cute girls" wherever they are on notice that they may be taking a risk if they go out with this particular man. IE acknowledged this in her ABC interview, claiming the damage caused to BM "... is, frankly, nearly irreparable at this point, because it's hard for anybody to believe that Barry is not who they claim he was".

This effect isn't happening because DA Stanley filed charges without evidence, it's happening because the AA that established probable cause to arrest and try BM for his wife's murder was made public in accordance with Colorado law.
 
Last edited:

MassGuy

The Monsters Aren’t The Ones Beneath The Bed
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
21,699
Reaction score
509,175
My opinion:

One possible scenario I can think of would be she was abducted while she was out bike riding, since they found her bike tossed down a slope.

Another less likely possibility would require looking at the phone of that "married with children" man she was having an affair with. Conceivable she could have implemented her plan to disappear in South America to meet up with the guy. Maybe she tossed her phone and bought a burner phone or a new phone to carry out her plan, paying for everything in cash. Maybe the guy came to his senses and decided he didn't want to abandon his family and embark on such a course. Could something have happened to her in South America? I don't think this is likely because SM's children have not heard from her, but would still like to know his phone shows no further contact with her or that he didn't get a new phone where contact is continuing.

In my opinion, without some solid evidence BM killed her, there is room for reasonable doubt. My opinion and conjecture.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" -- English jurist William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England", 1760.

Barry was literally the only person who could have been responsible.

A crumbling marriage, a threat of suicide, deleted texts, and a lie about the "perfect marriage."

Suzanne's digital footprint suddenly ceases, while she's talking to her lover and snap chatting her best friend. This breaks all established patterns.

Barry attempts to explain this away by describing the perfect night, in which they eat two steaks off two plates (like normal people), then one steak off two plates, and finally, one steak off one plate.

Then they make love and go to bed.

During this time his truck moves, his phone comes out of airplane mode, his phone shows 200 events (as opposed to the usual 0-2), his truck doors are opening and closing, his screen comes on, his phone is moving, her phone is moving, and Suzanne's phone powers down forever at the precise moment he needs it to.

He wakes to the alarm that he set, then he did not set. He drives straight to Broomfield, then makes a detour months later, when he's framed by a herd of elk that lead him right past the location of Suzanne's helmet.
SA Harris played him like a fiddle here, planting the idea in Barry's head that the truck telematics proved he was lying. Barry responded by once again changing his story to fit the evidence, a hallmark of murderers.

Not only is there no evidence of a bike ride, but there is overwhelming evidence it did not occur.

Miles Harvey said she wouldn't bike there. She didn't bring items she'd always bring. She would have had to have taken her powered down phone with her, which she uncharacteristically hadn't used for hours, and didn't use on that very important morning (Mother's day, best friend daughter's wedding, her daughters traveling home, etc).

Barry arrives in Broomfield, and spends all day traveling back and forth from the hotel and the wall.

Just kidding, that was a lie. He visited the wall once, and claimed he had time to kill so he dumped trash in 5 different receptacles.

The fact that 4 of these 5 dumps came prior to that, notwithstanding.

The Ritters call him, and he tells them he's "at the wall, with workers present."

Of course there were no workers, and he'd been in his room for 5 hours.

He repeats this lie to CBI multiple times, telling them he rushed from the wall back to his hotel room, where he left tools in the lobby.

Surveillance video proves this unequivocally to be the lie to end all lies. He leaves his room, stages tools in the lobby to make it appear he'd been working, and then hits the road.

The following day he speaks to Morgan on the phone, telling her that a lion got Suzanne. Then he encourages her to keep working, as it helps sell his alibi (this is really transparent and damning).

Nine months after the investigation began, Barry suddenly remembered that he had been chasing chipmunks around the backyard with his 22 rifle, when he arrived home on the day in question. He did this in response to phone data, that showed his phone moving erratically.

When Suzanne's Facebook began making friend requests in the days preceding her murder, Barry blamed a bear or a coyote for why his phone happened to be down by the river during this period.

To explain away the needle sheath in the dryer, Barry claimed to have shot two deer just weeks before, and illegally sawed their antlers off. This, despite previously claiming to have never fired a tranquilizer gun in Colorado.

Killers have a habit of confessing to lesser crimes, and Barry did this here, and when he suggested "immunity."

To explain his phone and truck indicating that he was creeping around the backyard on the afternoon of the murder (when he was supposedly having lunch with Suzanne), Barry blamed a long dead Turkey that he claimed to be searching for.

Of course Suzanne texted JL just prior, saying Barry wasn't home. His truck and phone show that he didn't enter the house, the meal he claimed to eat was from a day or two before (a little bit of truth..) and he called Suzanne minutes after sitting down with her for lunch (he clearly never entered the house)

When Barry initially arrived on scene, he immediately began attempting to cast suspicion towards a mountain Lion. He repeated this claim for months, offering it as a possibility to both investigators, and a reporter.

The average person knows that mountain lions don't commit bloodless kidnappings, toss bikes in ravines, and remove helmets and dump them a considerable distance away.

As a hunter and outdoorsman, Barry's actions are far more incriminating. Not only did he repeat this (Lion) scenario months later, but he kept searching the immediate area for months.

It allowed him to save face in regards to not doing anything to find his missing wife, while he got to enjoy the outdoors.

An innocent person doesn't have to lie about anything, and Barry lied about everything. Lies absolutely matter.

So to believe Barry is innocent, one would have to exhibit stunning ignorance, and then put stock in a theory for which there is not only no evidence, but no precedent:

Suzanne was kidnapped by a lion from "The Ghost and the Darkness."

A "Gone Girl" frame job on steroids.

The luckiest kidnapper on earth, who managed to get the prime suspect to tell lie after lie, and took advantage of dozens of coincidences.

In terms of factual guilt, I genuinely can't think of many cases this cut and dry.

There is no plausible alternative scenario, and no scenario that explains away all the evidence against Barry.

Everyone knows the husband is looked at first, and that's what happened here. He should have been able to be cleared very quickly, as any sign of life when he left that morning means he couldn't have killed her.

But that's when they hit a major hurdle in that regard, as not only was there no sign of life that morning, but there was no sign of life hours before that (extending back to the previous afternoon).

Barry's alibi was the most damning thing I've ever seen, from the Fotis Dulos like trash dumps, to the insane lie about his movements.

That hotel was full of cameras, and this moron had the gall to lie about where he was when he got that phone call from the Ritters.

The worst part is the lies started before he ever should have known a crime was committed.
 

Momofthreeboys

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
14,730
My opinion.

All the stuff about him opening the doors to his truck and backing his truck up, etc., how does that proved he killed SM? And why does he even need to explain why he opened and shut the doors to his truck? Its his truck and he can open and close the doors as much as he wants, whenever he wants. Maybe he couldn't sleep and decided to clean his truck...

Sometime I try to use my phone and I find I cannot because it's on airplane mode. But I didn't knowingly put it on airplane mode, but somehow it was, and for no nefarious reason. Probably akin to butt-dialing someone. So maybe that happened to BM. Why does his phone being on airplane more mean he killed his wife?

I'm not even saying that he didn't kill his wife, maybe he did. But maybe he didn't. To arrest him and jail him for months based on such thin "evidence", it seems as if something is off.

Maybe I am just not seeing things correctly here. Will someone please explain how him opening and closing his care doors means he killed his wife?

Can anyone please write a coherent summary of why he killed his wife and how the "evidence" (car doors opening, phone on airplane mode, throwing trash into dumpster, bullet on floor, etc.., fits into his murder of his wife and the subsequent coverup? Without all the vitriol that makes so many posts unreadable?
Without the benefit of hearing experts and hearing cross examination there is doubt on surface for me in the truck data as well as the phone data from which prosecution speculated he was "chasing Suzanne around with a dart gun". There are other things that we have heard that have plausible reasons like the hurry up Broomfield trip, we know Barry runs when he and his wife are fighting, that comes from Suzanne grievances. It's plausible he sped up his Broomfield trip because he didn't want to be in the house continuing fighting. Much time was spent discussing the DNA on the glovebox but no time was spent on any other DNA found during the course of the investigation. We've heard speculation about trees, rocks, abandoned mines, chorine, noises in the nighttime, dogs that alerted or didn't alert, premediated actions and a 95 foot movement in the driveway during the night and all sorts of things that have never come to light during a trial or explored for voracity. We have never heard any cross during motions about the needle sheath other than the prosecution's theories at the preliminary. I personally just can't put a stake in a man's life hearing only prosecution's theories, I need a full trial with experts and cross examination. I would suggest Trebor5591 search MassGuy's posts for succinct arguments by someone who absolutely believes Barry is guilty...that poster was convinced based on prosecutions theories and gave lengthy summaries of why they held that belief.
 

MassGuy

The Monsters Aren’t The Ones Beneath The Bed
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
21,699
Reaction score
509,175
Without the benefit of hearing experts and hearing cross examination there is doubt on surface for me in the truck data as well as the phone data from which prosecution speculated he was "chasing Suzanne around with a dart gun". There are other things that we have heard that have plausible reasons like the hurry up Broomfield trip, we know Barry runs when he and his wife are fighting, that comes from Suzanne grievances. It's plausible he sped up his Broomfield trip because he didn't want to be in the house continuing fighting. Much time was spent discussing the DNA on the glovebox but no time was spent on any other DNA found during the course of the investigation. We've heard speculation about trees, rocks, abandoned mines, chorine, noises in the nighttime, dogs that alerted or didn't alert, premediated actions and a 95 foot movement in the driveway during the night and all sorts of things that have never come to light during a trial or explored for voracity. We have never heard any cross during motions about the needle sheath other than the prosecution's theories at the preliminary. I personally just can't put a stake in a man's life hearing only prosecution's theories, I need a full trial with experts and cross examination. I would suggest Trebor5591 search MassGuy's posts for succinct arguments by someone who absolutely believes Barry is guilty...that poster was convinced based on prosecutions theories and gave lengthy summaries of why they held that belief.
False. I was not convinced based on the prosecution theories, I was convinced based on the evidence, much of it corroborated by Barry himself.

Certain things here are not in dispute, things that are either incriminating or add color to the picture:

Barry lied about the state of their marriage.

Suzanne wanted a divorce.

Barry deleted incriminating texts.

Barry was both controlling and psychologically abusive.

Barry lied to the Ritters and CBI about where he was when he got that phone call.

Barry lied about not being offered a polygraph (goes to his propensity for lying).

Barry admitted to a frantic event in the backyard (chipmunks), and to driving past the helmet location.
 

CGray123

"Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional."
Joined
May 20, 2021
Messages
652
Reaction score
12,173
I am curious how they allegedly pinpointed a spot where they believe she is and so quickly it doesn’t seem it was disclosed to defense or perhaps it has been but they know it isn’t there?
I believe one or more of the hunters or firefighters who spent time with BM came forward late in the proceedings, with information from which inferences were made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top