Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #66 *ARREST*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
DizzyB said:
I have an alarm set. My partner thinks I have issues. I try to explain that there’s a whole lot of us out there, who have been anticipating this day for well over a year. Partner thinks I’m crazy.
Click to expand...

You probably shouldn't tell him about the homicide lasagna. But feel free to pull up a chair at the crazy table, you will have lots of company!
 
Scootie98 said:
Any guesses about which individuals close to Barry in Salida might be called as prosecution witnesses?

Yeah...I watched plenty of the OJ trial too...One thing the defense couldn't explain was how Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson's blood ended up on OJ's socks. Brilliant as they may have been....it was a runaway jury in OJ's corner. That won't happen in Salida.
Click to expand...
MOO LAPD lost that case.

MOO blood on the sock was countered by a defense expert testifying the blood on was transferred there, and not spattered on the sock. Spatter is aerosol, and distinctive.
MOO that "not spatter" testimony fit in with the failure to maintain chain of custody of the CS blood sample.

I think Spezze does not keep fool police in his shop.
And in this case if there are officers that are known for saying racist things it won't play a part.

MOO Hopefully all is done by procedure in this case.
 
Last edited:
DizzyB said:
My goal tonight is to rewatch the video that was made for Suzanne’s birthday this year. It’s lovely, and shows their relationship. I appreciated the video so much at the time, and more so now on the eve of her speaking Suzanne’s truth
Click to expand...

That is a lovely idea. Would you mind adding the link as I would like to watch it again myself.
 
Gonna be making my version of homicide lasagna tonight (I use bow tie pasta) and will also be setting an alarm. Thankfully my husband has been aware of and sometimes even gets sucked into my true crime obsession...
 
Niner said:
Just a Reminder!! :)

I shall be posting the tweets from Ashley Franco during the morning session - someone else will probably have to take over as it will past my bedtime when the afternoon session restarts. Also for Tuesday I shall post the tweets.
animated-smileys-computer-08.gif


Anyone else volunteering to do other people's tweets??
Click to expand...

You're simply the best!!!
 
IDK who will be there for Barry but Websleuths is bringing its A-team to the Prelim!

We have @MassGuy, (the Tom Brady of Websleuths) providing insightful commentary, @Seattle1 our legal scholar, our very own @NoSI as our boots on the ground (Safe travels @NoSI!) and every other websleuther who has followed this case since the beginning and brought information, knowledge, commentary and levity to the discussion, 66 threads and counting. Finally we are going to get some details about what transpired that cost Suzanne her life.

Cheers everyone! See you @8:00!
 
kshultz06082 said:
I did a little experiment in my head last night related to Suzanne's BFF being the star witness... I, like Suzanne, have an out of state BFF, so I tried to use my experience to see how much info I think SO might have in regards to SM & BM's everyday life. Based purely on the way my BFF and I talk and text and when possible, interact in person, I would say SO is much more aware of who Suzanne is and was than Barry could have ever hoped to be. I am in a good marriage where we have an equal partnership, but my BFF still knows every single time my husband so much as irritates me, even if my husband is not aware that he irritated me. She knows literally everything about me. Female BFFs are gifts from God. I don't have to hide anything from my husband, but we don't have the DEEP conversations that her and I do. She knows the intricacies of my feelings, thoughts, and dreams that my husband just has the base level of. It's not that he doesn't care, but he can't relate to much of it the way another female can. I have a feeling that what Suzanne shared with Melinda will be very eye-opening, but I would bet 2 homicide lasagnas that SO has ALL the information that BM doesn't want anyone to know and that her testimony will be even more compelling than that text from SM to MM. SO is the person that is truly going to help us get to know Suzanne. I'm sad for her though. In my experiment, I wondered what it would feel like to be her on the stand at a murder trial where my BFF was the victim... I think her testimony will be insightful, but gut-wrenching. I hope when a jury is picked that it ends up being primarily women and women that have a soul-sister BFF cuz they will "get" SM & SOs bond. We don't lie to or sugarcoat anything with our BFFs. It is a raw, unfiltered relationship like no other. I am sending prayers of strength and healing to SO.

JMO
Click to expand...

It will forever be known, as Homicide Lasagna.
 
DizzyB said:
Think the defense will ask for some kind of emergency hearing before the second two days? I do.
Click to expand...
They might, but it probably won’t be granted.

The discovery hearing is going to occur sometime in November, and those complaints, and any future ones, will be addressed then.

So any hearing won’t be related to that, and can probably be addressed via motions.
 
Bringing this post over from the previous thread. Does anyone else find the bolded part to be interesting or is it just me?

Does anyone else find it odd that the Moorman siblings and the Morphew daughters are going to be watching the proceedings on webex? I definitely would have thought a few of them would be in the courthouse because they were going to be called as witnesses. So, is this order by the court telling us that none of what they could testify to is needed to prove that BM should be bound over for trial? At the very least, I would have expected that Melinda would be called for the preliminary hearing. Am I misunderstanding something?

Also as a side note, the order explicitly states that the Moorman family has not seen the AA due to the suppression order and they are unaware of the facts of the case but goes on to say "similarly" the Morphew daughters would be allowed to view via webex if they choose to... why are the 2 sets of family members separated? Would it not have been simpler to say the Moorman and Morphew families are allowed to watch if they choose to and none are aware of the facts of the case due to the AA suppression? I might be reading too much into it, but the wording makes me think that the Morphew daughters have seen the AA and can choose to view the hearing if they want to but they are already aware of the facts of the case. I can't think of another reason to refer to the family members separately. Thoughts?

Eta to add link to order dated 8/4/2021

Colorado Judicial Branch
 
kshultz06082 said:
Bringing this post over from the previous thread. Does anyone else find the bolded part to be interesting or is it just me?

Does anyone else find it odd that the Moorman siblings and the Morphew daughters are going to be watching the proceedings on webex? I definitely would have thought a few of them would be in the courthouse because they were going to be called as witnesses. So, is this order by the court telling us that none of what they could testify to is needed to prove that BM should be bound over for trial? At the very least, I would have expected that Melinda would be called for the preliminary hearing. Am I misunderstanding something?

Also as a side note, the order explicitly states that the Moorman family has not seen the AA due to the suppression order and they are unaware of the facts of the case but goes on to say "similarly" the Morphew daughters would be allowed to view via webex if they choose to... why are the 2 sets of family members separated? Would it not have been simpler to say the Moorman and Morphew families are allowed to watch if they choose to and none are aware of the facts of the case due to the AA suppression? I might be reading too much into it, but the wording makes me think that the Morphew daughters have seen the AA and can choose to view the hearing if they want to but they are already aware of the facts of the case. I can't think of another reason to refer to the family members separately. Thoughts?

Eta to add link to order dated 8/4/2021

Colorado Judicial Branch
Click to expand...
The paragraph starts by talking about the distance (Moormans in Indiana). I think it is worded like that as the distance part is not the case for the daughters (they reside in the area).

That being said, I do believe the daughters are way more aware of contents of the affidavit than Suzanne’s side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 155 more.
Total: 1,515 (members: 156, guests: 1,359)

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
1,359
Total visitors
1,515
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,780
Messages
17,958,724
Members
228,606
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top