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

[Seattle1]

Link to redacted, searchable, AA:

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

Ashley Franco @AshleyKKTV Agent Duge is excused. We're taking a very short break before calling the next witness. @KKTV11News #BarryMorphew #SuzanneMorphew 2:19 PM · Nov 9, 2021· We're back with Jeff Lindsey via WebEx. Still working out some technical problems that they're hoping to get fixed...

www.websleuths.com

 

[MassGuy]

Respectfully, people have opined the bike was staged based on reports, evidence, and testimony -- much of which has been documented for easy reference in the MEDIA ONLY thread linked below for OP's convenience.

A couple of days ago, I posted a news photo of the Colorado mountains with 8" of new snowfall. May snowfall is typical of the area in question and where early May (i.e., Mother's Day) is hardly the mark of biking season in full swing, as also evidenced by SM having her bike serviced only days before Mother's Day in preparation for regular, seasonal riding.

This wasn't a matter of SM just doing things differently. In this case, it's simply not reasonable that on one of her first rides of the 2020 biking season, SM would attempt to ride a trail deemed challenging for an experienced, train-fit individual.

More importantly, not only were expected details of the physics and biomechanics that occur in a fraction of a second where a cyclist crashes completely absent but so was any physical evidence. In other words, the staging of the bicycle is not just conjecture. MOO

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

To me, her phone activity is the clincher.

She used her phone a lot, and had established patterns for doing so.

She's communicating with her lover, and snap chatting her best friend on the day before her daughter's wedding.

Then all activity ceases, and she never communicates with a soul again.

Her phone last pings BEFORE Barry left for Broomfield, which obviously indicates it was powered down.

So she wakes up on Mother's Day, her daughters are traveling home, she hasn't communicated with her lover in hours, and she hasn't even opened Sheila's communications.

But she keeps her phone off, never bothering to turn it on, on this very important day. Then she goes on a bike ride to a place she never goes, without things she always brings, and with a powered down cell phone.

No.

 

[Seattle1]

To me, her phone activity is the clincher.

She used her phone a lot, and had established patterns for doing so.

She's communicating with her lover, and snap chatting her best friend on the day before her daughter's wedding.

Then all activity ceases, and she never communicates with a soul again.

Her phone last pings BEFORE Barry left for Broomfield, which obviously indicates it was powered down.

So she wakes up on Mother's Day, her daughters are traveling home, she hasn't communicated with her lover in hours, and she hasn't even opened Sheila's communications.

But she keeps her phone off, never bothering to turn it on, on this very important day. Then she goes on a bike ride to a place she never goes, without things she always brings, and with a powered down cell phone.

No.

Exactly. Bike ride notwithstanding, not seeing SM powering off her phone while her daughters are traveling out-of-state (during a pandemic)!

 

[Puzzles8]

Exactly. Bike ride notwithstanding, not seeing SM powering off her phone while her daughters are traveling out-of-state (during a pandemic)!

On Mother's day...............

 

[justtrish]

Absolutely. It's incredible evidence of "consciousness of guilt." There is absolutely no reason to lie unless you know a crime has been committed.

There's no overstating its significance.

I know we've discussed this particular lie before too and is maybe one of the most important lies he told that proves his guilt because he didn't need to say anything about his location when the Ritter's called, but he was starting his alibi at that point and not only did he say he was at the job site, but he said workers were present. There was no workers until the following day and he never had single interaction with any of his workers on Sunday or at any point in Broomfield that weekend so this isn't even an accidental lie or one he told later because he couldn't remember specifics, it's a lie he had absolutely no reason to tell.

 

[MassGuy]

I know we've discussed this particular lie before too and is maybe one of the most important lies he told that proves his guilt because he didn't need to say anything about his location when the Ritter's called, but he was starting his alibi at that point and not only did he say he was at the job site, but he said workers were present. There was no workers until the following day and he never had single interaction with any of his workers on Sunday or at any point in Broomfield that weekend so this isn't even an accidental lie or one he told later because he couldn't remember specifics, it's a lie he had absolutely no reason to tell.

What's particularly problematic, is no one is able to say "maybe the Ritters misheard him," as he repeated this lie multiple times to CBI.

He told them he was at the job site when he got that call, rushed back, left his tools in the lobby, and headed straight home.

In reality he was caught on camera exiting his room, and going to his truck to retrieve tools in order to set up the lie he eventually told.

There's a lot more where that came from; his alibi is an unmitigated disaster.

 

[justtrish]

I've seen people say SM's Mother Day's bike ride didn't happen and it was staged by BM, but I don't see how anyone can be certain. Is it because she wasn't wearing a backpack she usually wore? Or that she took a route she usually didn't take? People can do things differently. In my opinion it isn't evidence that she didn't go on a Mother's Day bike ride and was abducted.

Did anyone see BM toss SM's bike down the slope? If not, how can anyone be certain that's what happened?

People absolutely can do something different! I take the entire scenario into consideration though. She had established some patterns and was new to biking. The bf saying without even knowing her bike was found yet, that he searched various places, but not others because she wouldn't head up that hill was an innocent statement and he seemed very shocked to learn a few moments later that her bike was found in that place he didn't figure she'd go. So maybe she just did decide to try that hill.

But, this was mothers day morning and her girls were not home. Her best friends daughter was getting married that day and her husband was traveling for work. WHY did she not log in online or check her phone one time that morning before her ride? That is very inconsistent with the Suzanne we have heard about that has coffee and checks emails, rides with her camel back and usually rides in the afternoon and not in the area the bike was found. By all accounts she was a very attentive loving involved mother who stayed in contact with her girls. Her phone went silent before 5am that day and was never powered on again and never found. So we also have to believe then that she went for an early ride without having a charged cell phone, without even turning it on to check and make sure her girls didn't' call or message and not only that but she took the phone and charger with her on the bike ride but didn't have it turned on and the phone and charger have never been found also.

I would feel very different about the bike ride if:

Her phone was found somewhere or even if the phone was on and GPS confirmed she was moving along at a bike pace before it went dead at some point later that day or in the following days.

The bike scene area looked like a person had went down the hill with the bike and a person landed down there and walked away, any blood at all down there, the ground disturbed the brush smashed down a little bit where she would have landed..

Her camel back was also missing

Her husband didn't lie about when he was awake and what he was doing that day prior and the morning of her bike ride

Her husbands truck didn't move toward the location of the bike before he even admitted to being awake that morning

So for me it isn't just that I don't think she was riding her bike, the evidence we know about doesn't reasonably support her riding her bike that morning even if she just decided to go a way she didn't usually go. Many other things don't point toward her being on a bike ride either.

 

[steeltowngirl]

This is from California statue, but notable for the explanation of reasonable doubt vs. possible doubt.

CHAPTER 2. The Trial [1093 - 1130]
( Chapter 2 enacted 1872. )
1096.

A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt whether his or her guilt is satisfactorily shown, he or she is entitled to an acquittal, but the effect of this presumption is only to place upon the state the burden of proving him or her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: “It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.”

 

[Seattle1]

I recall a local gentleman (who worked with BM) that attended the first day of the prelim who gave a comment to a reporter in the parking lot that he had an idea where SM might be recovered. I've long wondered about that location.

Found KDVR's soundbite with local resident "Wayne" described in my quoted post.

Investigators: ‘Suzanne Morphew was having an affair for 2 years,’ more details revealed in husband’s hearing

For the first time since bringing charges against Barry Morphew, accused of killing his wife Suzanne, prosecutors outlined their investigation in detail in open court.

kdvr.com

 

[Pyrite]

There were 80 truck events, not 80 door events. This could be a door opening, and lights coming on, which would account for several events with one action.

I don’t have the AA in front of me atm but I believe that number is correct, 80 truck events not all of which involve opening/closing truck doors iirc.

RSBM

from the searchable AA using the link @Seattle1 posted above - On May 10, 2020, from 3:25 AM to 3:48 AM, the Ford F-350 registered O mph with GPS at Morphew residence as the doors opened and closed multiple times. SA Hoyland noted over eighty (80) events involving the F350 during this timeframe.

I see how you both are probably right, but this kind of shows the problem with the AA. Why state there were 80 events, when all that matters Is how many times the doors opened and closed and not state the door numbers? Seems like sloppy writing to me.

if I was to judge BM’s guilt just based on the AA, I would find him guilty. The AA is just LEs side of the story though. We know, from what both judges stated, that much of what is in the AA will not be admissible, so the jurors won’t hear part of what’s in it. We also haven’t really heard the defenses side of the story. I do wondered if IE hammering on the DNA wasn’t partly misdirection so the government wouldn’t guess her real strategy when the trial started.

 

[MassGuy]

RSBM

from the searchable AA using the link @Seattle1 posted above - On May 10, 2020, from 3:25 AM to 3:48 AM, the Ford F-350 registered O mph with GPS at Morphew residence as the doors opened and closed multiple times. SA Hoyland noted over eighty (80) events involving the F350 during this timeframe.

I see how you both are probably right, but this kind of shows the problem with the AA. Why state there were 80 events, when all that matters Is how many times the doors opened and closed and not state the door numbers? Seems like sloppy writing to me.

if I was to judge BM’s guilt just based on the AA, I would find him guilty. The AA is just LEs side of the story though. We know, from what both judges stated, that much of what is in the AA will not be admissible, so the jurors won’t hear part of what’s in it. We also haven’t really heard the defenses side of the story. I do wondered if IE hammering on the DNA wasn’t partly misdirection so the government wouldn’t guess her real strategy when the trial started.

She's still citing the debunked DNA now, both during her post dismissal press conference and GMA appearance.

The fact that she's doing that tells us all we need to know. She knows full well there is nothing that exonerates him, so she lies.

It works, as much of the country doesn't know the specifics of this case. We know better though.

 

[Murphy1950]

I've seen people say SM's Mother Day's bike ride didn't happen and it was staged by BM, but I don't see how anyone can be certain. Is it because she wasn't wearing a backpack she usually wore? Or that she took a route she usually didn't take? People can do things differently. In my opinion it isn't evidence that she didn't go on a Mother's Day bike ride and was abducted.

Did anyone see BM toss SM's bike down the slope? If not, how can anyone be certain that's what happened?

Fair Question....which is why it's called a preponderance of the evidence. Why would an abductor be bothered with going back to the house for her charger and to burn the Journal? Why would they bother to toss her helmet in another area? What a coincidence to happen the same week Suzanne says it's over.

 

[justtrish]

RSBM

from the searchable AA using the link @Seattle1 posted above - On May 10, 2020, from 3:25 AM to 3:48 AM, the Ford F-350 registered O mph with GPS at Morphew residence as the doors opened and closed multiple times. SA Hoyland noted over eighty (80) events involving the F350 during this timeframe.

I see how you both are probably right, but this kind of shows the problem with the AA. Why state there were 80 events, when all that matters Is how many times the doors opened and closed and not state the door numbers? Seems like sloppy writing to me.

if I was to judge BM’s guilt just based on the AA, I would find him guilty. The AA is just LEs side of the story though. We know, from what both judges stated, that much of what is in the AA will not be admissible, so the jurors won’t hear part of what’s in it. We also haven’t really heard the defenses side of the story. I do wondered if IE hammering on the DNA wasn’t partly misdirection so the government wouldn’t guess her real strategy when the trial started.

I suspect summarizing it made it flow better and emphasized that this couldn't have been a random singular event that say the wind could have triggered. It was showing when they pulled the data for the truck, 80 events were recorded. That leaves very little to no wiggle room that say he went out to get something from the truck and just forgot to mention it. If he was out there opening and closing various doors over the course of 20 minutes, then he was intentionally doing something he should have remembered doing at a time he claimed to be in bed asleep. I might forget I ran out to grab my phone charger from my car, but I wouldn't forget loading something into my vehicle for 20 minutes needing to make several trips and opening more than one door, etc. I think simply saying 80 events emphasizes or highlights that this was a person intentionally doing something in that truck during a time he claimed to be sleeping.

 

[mom2chloe]

I recall a local gentleman (who worked with BM) that attended the first day of the prelim who gave a comment to a reporter in the parking lot that he had an idea where SM might be recovered. I've long wondered about that location.

Seriously?! This is hopeful and I thank you for that among many other things.

 

[Sillybilly]

Thread is open again.

This thread is to discuss the case, not other members. It is also for every single member to freely express their opinion and not be badgered or trashed for doing so. Even if a member says "it's a gut feel", does not mean they have to explain what it is based on. If you disagree, do so respectfully or move on without comment.

Discuss the post, not the poster.

 

[mrjitty]

^^rsbbm
I disagree that the case was 'more weak' [weaker] during the preliminary but that the state failed to meet the burden after allowing CBI's Cahill to testify on the DNA in a manner that was not consistent with the evidence and/or how the witness was previously prepared by the prosecution. Seems to me that Cahill had his own agenda and it's unfortunate that his reputation was not better known to the prosecutor at the time. MOO

This is pretty much where I have landed on the various Judicial comments and I guess coming from a legal background I think it is pretty important to stick to the specific dicta and rulings

I don't believe the Judge Murphy ever meant to imply the the case was weak. Rather he said there was a case to answer, addressing the main thrust of the evidence but correctly noted that the DNA evidence, as presented in the short form prelim format, could lead to reasonable doubt. But one could hardly expect the DNA evidence to be resolved at the Prelim, so perhaps the ruling was inevitable.

I 100% agree Cahill was a terrible witness for the prosecution, and obviously he should never have testified on the DNA. But again, I don't see what that has to do with the strength of the case at trial.

Like I say, I am kind of suss about him and his "agenda" as you tactfully put it.

 

[mrjitty]

if I was to judge BM’s guilt just based on the AA, I would find him guilty. The AA is just LEs side of the story though. We know, from what both judges stated, that much of what is in the AA will not be admissible, so the jurors won’t hear part of what’s in it. We also haven’t really heard the defenses side of the story. I do wondered if IE hammering on the DNA wasn’t partly misdirection so the government wouldn’t guess her real strategy when the trial started.

RSBM - I think we have to be clear what would be inadmissible. i.e. the DV stuff, and propensity evidence from witnesses who knew BM. I don't think either of the Judge's indicated that any of the key prelim evidence relied on by Judge Murphy would be inadmissible. In reaching his verdict, the Judge was well aware of admissibility issues and will only have relied on evidence likely to be before the jury at trial.

As for IE, she also has to discover her expert evidence, so I think the prosecution would be well aware of her intended direction.

 

[Kingsley]

Fair Question....which is why it's called a preponderance of the evidence. Why would an abductor be bothered with going back to the house for her charger and to burn the Journal? Why would they bother to toss her helmet in another area? What a coincidence to happen the same week Suzanne says it's over.

Purely Devil's Advocate here:
1) The abductor used the charger to murder/strangle her and so took it with him/her
2) Suzanne burned her own journal to keep Barry reading about her infidelity
3) Helmet was tossed in another area to keep search/recovery resources focused on different area
4) There are 14364 divorces per week ( Divorce Statistics and Facts | What Affects Divorce Rates in the U.S.?) and 61.96M married couples in the US (https://comparecamp.com/marriage-st...llion married couples in 1960. More items... ) so likelihood of that of Suzanne ending it was about .02% if all couples were equally likely to divorce. No real point here since I can't find how many people are no longer seen once divorce is requested but I was curious to take it as far as the available data supports. (sorry)

No longer a Devil Adv, but still, IMO, these are definitely a big hmmmm, but probably not enough to send someone away for life.

 

[notbornyesterday]

Purely Devil's Advocate here:
1) The abductor used the charger to murder/strangle her and so took it with him/her
2) Suzanne burned her own journal to keep Barry reading about her infidelity
3) Helmet was tossed in another area to keep search/recovery resources focused on different area
4) There are 14364 divorces per week ( Divorce Statistics and Facts | What Affects Divorce Rates in the U.S.?) and 61.96M married couples in the US (https://comparecamp.com/marriage-statistics/#:~:text=Marriage Statistics in the United States 1 A,million married couples in 1960. More items... ) so likelihood of that of Suzanne ending it was about .02% if all couples were equally likely to divorce. No real point here since I can't find how many people are no longer seen once divorce is requested but I was curious to take it as far as the available data supports. (sorry)

No longer a Devil Adv, but still, IMO, these are definitely a big hmmmm, but probably not enough to send someone away for life.

Okay, if the murderer used her phone cord, did he kill her in the bedroom where she kept the phone cord? If so, why was her bike in the ravine if she was killed with her phone cord at the house? She wouldn't have had the cord with her on a bike ride. She never powered her phone up that morning. On Mother's Day with her beloved daughter's traveling through the Rocky Mountains. Think about that.

If Suzanne burned the journal to hide her infidelity, once again, what's with the bike being in the ravine and the phone cord being missing and the helmet being down the road in the opposite direction of Broomfield?

I totally agree with #3, that helmet was put there to leave a breadcrumb leading in the opposite direction of where the murderer went. You have that one totally correct- it was there to mislead and direct away from Broomfield and Barry.

As for your #4, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you think Suzanne wasn't serious about divorce and odds were that they would reconcile??

 

[Megnut]

Okay, if the murderer used her phone cord, did he kill her in the bedroom where she kept the phone cord? If so, why was her bike in the ravine if she was killed with her phone cord at the house? She wouldn't have had the cord with her on a bike ride. She never powered her phone up that morning. On Mother's Day with her beloved daughter's traveling through the Rocky Mountains. Think about that.

If Suzanne burned the journal to hide her infidelity, once again, what's with the bike being in the ravine and the phone cord being missing and the helmet being down the road in the opposite direction of Broomfield?

I totally agree with #3, that helmet was put there to leave a breadcrumb leading in the opposite direction of where the murderer went. You have that one totally correct- it was there to mislead and direct away from Broomfield and Barry.

As for your #4, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you think Suzanne wasn't serious about divorce and odds were that they would reconcile??

Or.... Barry came home and discovered the charred journal and his murdered wife, with the phone cord. Fearing he'd be blamed, he... framed himself.

There truly is no space for any alternative!

If Barry said, when he got home, Suzanne already had gotten herself gone, he'd almost have a better shot at selling his innocence.

Except he volunteered that he'd taken her bike out of her RR. So we'd have to believe that he'd come home, she was gone, he de-Ranged her bike, and threw it down the ravine in the morning because why?

And he powered her phone down in the morning for her why?

He wanted immunity to declare that Suzanne was missing of her own accord but he wanted to withhold that information so LE would continue to look at him as a murderer, when he was just a garden-variety jilted husband?

Except we heard it from him, the killer is still out there.

So..... I guess she didn't leave on her own. Per Barry.

We're back to the beginning. LE lingo: we can't leave the house. That's where it all started....

Whoever prevented Suzanne from accessing any of her devices from midday on 5/9 and all points going forward has blood on his hands.

I wonder if he's still bathing in bleach.

JMO