Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #61 *ARREST*

[CGray123]

And yet the judge specifically focuses on the daughters in clear, direct language, numerous times as if only they would be endangered physically or psychologically (or otherwise compromised) by public release of the AA.

I am still puzzled as to why the attorneys on both sides cannot find time to redact to speed up release. I wonder if the Media are appealing?

I think the judge's opinions are led too much by his personal reading of what must be very shocking details - however extraneous to evidence he may find them - rather than just a fidelity to the law.

I hope the Media test his conclusions vigorously. MOO

BBM. I am curious. What specific factual or legal conclusions did the judge make with respect to the daughters would you contest if you were in the Media's position. I don't see any that are out of line. In fact, I don't see any issues in the order that are worthy of an appeal. Please elaborate on your point.

 

[Hoss569]

I wonder if Barry was expecting somebody to notice she was missing at a much later time than what played out, or did he expect the neighbour to notice as quick as she did? He may have expected to have more time to clean up and dispose of evidence/the body than he actually did.

IMO, his daughters did notice before anyone else. I thought their was another call/text or two to BM from the daughters in the timeline above trying to get in contact with SM, which led to contacting the neighbor( I could be incorrect in this thought). Again, IMO, their return being delayed brought the neighbor into the mix which could have mucked things up. He would have known or planned on the daughters being their earlier than they were, which his story and involvement of LE could have been much different than what it was. Thankfully the neighbor was involved early, IMO.

 

[Gardenkeep]

Well written concise article concerning the decision to seal the AA, and also court dates coming up:
Judge Rules To Keep Barry Morphew's 130 Page Arrest Affidavit Sealed Until At Least September

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Honestly, as much as I'd love to get a gander at the AA, I support the decision. The daughters have lost their mother. Their father is facing charges. I can't begin to imagine what those two young people are trying to cope with emotionally right now. I believe they will be privy to the AA as involved members, and they need privacy to handle what they will discover, and how to cope with what will be a high profile case. It's going to be tough going for them through all of this. I respect their needs first and foremost.

Agree especially if it is full of inflammatory language and things that will never see the light of day in the courtroom as the judge alluded to and it is not redacted before they view. That would be hard to read a bunch of opinions and such from people in their town about their parents and larger family and frankly, their thoughts are their own. No one is "entitled" to tell them what they should do or what they should believe about the situation and I think the judge has concerns about that also. The very fact that there continues to be "chatter" about them underscores the judges concerns.

 

[CGray123]

If you could direct me to a place where adult children or minor children are cited as victims I would appreciate it.
I see victim to only mean specifically a victim of a crime in the Colorado Statute.
(CRS § 24-4.1-302.5(1)(a))

There is no charge in BMs AA of committing a crime against them.

The definition of "victim" under the Victim Rights Act extends beyond the person against whom a crime is committed, under these circumstances. This extended definition applies ONLY to confer upon children and siblings, among others, special rights, including, to be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal justice process.

This definition applies IN NO OTHER CONTEXT, a fact that CM tends to overlook. His heart is in the right place: he doesn't want people to get so focused on procedural issues that they lose sight of Suzanne and what happened to her. I agree entirely and will never forget that's why BM is in jail, but I also understand that before the trial, the proceedings will necessarily focus on BM's rights to be presumed innocent by the forum, to have a fair process and an impartial decision. SM will have her day at the trial, as she should, and CM sometimes loses sight of that IMO.

Here's the statute, bolded for emphasis in response to your question.

24-41-302(5) "Victim" means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative. For purposes of notification under this part 3, any person under the age of eighteen years is considered incapacitated, unless that person is legally emancipated. It is the intent of the general assembly that this definition of the term "victim" shall apply only to this part 3 and shall not be applied to any other provision of the laws of the state of Colorado that refer to the term "victim".

 

[Boxer]

They have a right to read it themselves or decide not to, but eventually all the information is going to come out. I would think eventually they will want to read it and BM won't have the ability to stop them. Imo

MOO They can read it after Aug 24th. Lots of time to harden opinions.

 

[Error505]

Yes, there was a story about sandwiches or takeout Friday, but was never confirmed by anyone. No reported sightings of SM with the exception of the bicycle repair shop Thursday, May 7, confirmed by LS via an email iirc. I’ll find the link and add it.

Adding to my previous post regarding Scott bicycle repair shop
CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #53

Snipped for focus @OldCop’s post

“The notes I have state the following:

Wed 5/6 Housecleaner spoke to both when she was emptying trash at the neighborhood dumpster on Puma Path

Thursday 5/7 SM allegedly went to Scott the bike repair guy in Salida”

 

[Deleted member 222031]

Thanks for finding that! I was remembering footage from the homesite around that time but didn’t remember where to look for it.

An intriguing hypothesis, that I think some posters were touching on yesterday: What if BM damaged the bobcat on Friday night? Working in the dark with a bobcat would be difficult and if BM was potentially preparing a grave site, he could have hit rock or tried to move too much and damaged the bucket.

So maybe that is part of the reason the day’s work with MG was cut short. They wouldn’t have the bobcat available to do required work and BM needed to fix it so that he could bury SM after murdering her. So maybe Morgan did take the beach by hand. If they got there around 9am, I could see doing all that by hand taking 1hr+ and then BM leaves around 11am so that he could go make the repairs.


The other thing that is so interesting about that footage are the 6 or so additional holes that are dug out on the rear of the property.

I noticed the 6 additional holes. It looked like deck footings to me not LE dig sites. I thought I saw concrete pillars inside them.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

IMO, his daughters did notice before anyone else. I thought their was another call/text or two to BM from the daughters in the timeline above trying to get in contact with SM, which led to contacting the neighbor( I could be incorrect in this thought). Again, IMO, their return being delayed brought the neighbor into the mix which could have mucked things up. He would have known or planned on the daughters being their earlier than they were, which his story and involvement of LE could have been much different than what it was. Thankfully the neighbor was involved early, IMO.

DBM

 

[Ontario Mom]

The other thing that is so interesting about that footage are the 6 or so additional holes that are dug out on the rear of the property.

RSBM

At the time, the MSM was reporting that the property was searched in several places, not just the concrete slab that quickly became the focus.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

BBM. I am curious. What specific factual or legal conclusions did the judge make with respect to the daughters would you contest if you were in the Media's position. I don't see any that are out of line. In fact, I don't see any issues in the order that are worthy of an appeal. Please elaborate on your point.

I actually disagree with the 1st paragraph of the analysis. I lean strongly toward the AA being public information (with redactions, as deemed necessary by both sides). I have posted my opinion several times so I won't elaborate here. I understand many vital interests are at play, I just think it is a public document and 90% of the judge's legal objections are specious. Release it, already! MHO, as always.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I actually disagree with the 1st paragraph of the analysis. I lean strongly toward the AA being public information (with redactions, as deemed necessary by both sides). I have posted my opinion several times so I won't elaborate here. I understand many vital interests are at play, I just think it is a public document and 90% of the judge's legal objections are specious. Release it, already! MHO, as always.

Patience, we don’t want any appealable errors.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Agree especially if it is full of inflammatory language and things that will never see the light of day in the courtroom as the judge alluded to and it is not redacted before they view. That would be hard to read a bunch of opinions and such from people in their town about their parents and larger family and frankly, their thoughts are their own. No one is "entitled" to tell them what they should do or what they should believe about the situation and I think the judge has concerns about that also. The very fact that there continues to be "chatter" about them underscores the judges concerns.

I didn't recall the judge saying the AA was full of inflammatory language, etc. as bolded above, so I had to go read it again. From the document: https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...21CR78/21CR78 Order Limit Public Redacted.pdf

"First, the Court has concerns about the amount of information contained in the 130-page Affidavit. The Affidavit is, by far, the lengthiest and most detailed affidavit the Court has ever seen in almost 30 years of experience with criminal cases. A significant portion of the information in the affidavit was not relevant to the Court's finding of probable cause, and possibly not admissible at trial under the Colorado Rules of Evidence."
(bolded by me, as those are the parts that seem to be the most important)

 

[10ofRods]

sbm

I’m not sure if I can locate the info to cite, but, iirc, when the sandwich story first came out, it supposedly happened on Friday. Anyone else remember this, or am I mistaken?

I've only heard that it was Saturday. The information came from Andy, who got it from somewhere else. That seemed to indicate, to Andy, that there was only a 3.5 hour window during which Suzanne was killed. He didn't indicate exactly when he thought that was, but presumably he thinks the unusual activity on the FB account indicates that Suzanne is gone by that time.

I am not at all certain anyone saw Suzanne in town (or Poncha) that evening.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I actually disagree with the 1st paragraph of the analysis. I lean strongly toward the AA being public information (with redactions, as deemed necessary by both sides). I have posted my opinion several times so I won't elaborate here. I understand many vital interests are at play, I just think it is a public document and 90% of the judge's legal objections are specious. Release it, already! MHO, as always.

The right exists to the public with regard to trials but the Supreme Court also related that did not necessarily apply to proceedings prior to trial and left that discretion to the lower courts. Will be interesting if any media outlets try and challenge this judges ruling. I happen to think the judge will prevail under the laws existing. Plus it seems apparent that the document contains quite a bit of information that should not be released to the public and if released could damage the case or be harmful for individuals that willingly spoke with LE. I get it. People have been chatting for a year about everything under the sun and want to validate certain things.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I didn't recall the judge saying the AA was full of inflammatory language, etc. as bolded above, so I had to go read it again. From the document: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/21CR78 Order Limit Public Redacted.pdf

"First, the Court has concerns about the amount of information contained in the 130-page Affidavit. The Affidavit is, by far, the lengthiest and most detailed affidavit the Court has ever seen in almost 30 years of experience with criminal cases. A significant portion of the information in the affidavit was not relevant to the Court's finding of probable cause, and possibly not admissible at trial under the Colorado Rules of Evidence."
(bolded by me, as those are the parts that seem to be the most important)

The use of the word inflammatory is in the first sentence of the analysis and was part of the argument.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Double post

 

[waldojabba]

The definition of "victim" under the Victim Rights Act extends beyond the person against whom a crime is committed, under these circumstances. This extended definition applies ONLY to confer upon children and siblings, among others, special rights, including, to be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal justice process.

This definition applies IN NO OTHER CONTEXT, a fact that CM tends to overlook. His heart is in the right place: he doesn't want people to get so focused on procedural issues that they lose sight of Suzanne and what happened to her. I agree entirely and will never forget that's why BM is in jail, but I also understand that before the trial, the proceedings will necessarily focus on BM's rights to be presumed innocent by the forum, to have a fair process and an impartial decision. SM will have her day at the trial, as she should, and CM sometimes loses sight of that IMO.

Here's the statute, bolded for emphasis in response to your question.

24-41-302(5) "Victim" means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative. For purposes of notification under this part 3, any person under the age of eighteen years is considered incapacitated, unless that person is legally emancipated. It is the intent of the general assembly that this definition of the term "victim" shall apply only to this part 3 and shall not be applied to any other provision of the laws of the state of Colorado that refer to the term "victim".

thanks for underlining this - it is a very important distinction that I missed initially yesterday - the definition is specific to just this part 3 and not to anything else - And in understanding that - it finally made sense to me!

 

[fcavanaugh]

sbm

I’m not sure if I can locate the info to cite, but, iirc, when the sandwich story first came out, it supposedly happened on Friday. Anyone else remember this, or am I mistaken?

The Friday food order was never confirmed.
Video at link below, Lauren confirms Scot, bike mechanic saw Suzanne on Thursday, May 7, 2020 and he worked on her bike that day.
Lauren goes on to state that a reported Mother’s Day Cambodian food order for someone named Suzanne was checked out and confirmed to have been for a different Suzanne, and states she was still working on confirming restaurants/food orders for that weekend, but couldn’t disclose any specifics to such at that time.
Scot and Bike repair on 5/7 starts @ 17:00 mark. Food orders starts @ 30:00 mark:

It was later later stated by Andy in his Dr. Phil interview in early October that SM & BM were seen out getting sandwiches around 4:00pm on Saturday. Andy doesn’t reveal source of the info, starts @ 4:20 mark:

Crime online article later reported the following BBM:
“She was last seen alive in the neighboring town of Salida the day before, when witnesses reportedly saw her and Barry out getting sandwiches.”

*has never been confirmed who the “witnesses” of the alleged Saturday sandwich sighting are.

BREAKING: Missing Suzanne Morphew husband Barry Morphew’s ‘alibi’ questioned as new details surface about landscaping job Mother’s Day weekend [VIDEO]

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

 

[CGray123]

I actually disagree with the 1st paragraph of the analysis. I lean strongly toward the AA being public information (with redactions, as deemed necessary by both sides). I have posted my opinion several times so I won't elaborate here. I understand many vital interests are at play, I just think it is a public document and 90% of the judge's legal objections are specious. Release it, already! MHO, as always.

All I can say is, the court cites statutes and substantial legal precedent to support his reasoning, and I haven't heard any alternative cases or arguments that the statutes precedents don't apply. And, importantly I think, the People deferred to his judgment. I favor public disclosure too, but to me temporary closure seems justified if it precludes a successful appeal of a conviction.