Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #78 *ARREST*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.

Mysti88c

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
560
Reaction score
2,362
A Chaffee County woman is missing after a neighbor said she went out for a bike ride Sunday and never returned
Chaffee County woman missing since Sunday after neighbor said she went out for bike ride

List of Case Players and Their Relationship to Discussion (Post #440)

————————————-
MEDIA, MAPS & TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*
Detailed timeline of events in the Morphew case:
CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA, MAPS &TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

—————————————
Suzanne Morphew Case Archive (developed and maintained by WS member AmandaReckonwith)
—————————————
Hearing Notes (Compliments of @NoSI)
Preliminary:
Day 1


————————————-
Suzanne Morphew FB page
Suzanne Morphew Twitter page



Verified Experts/Professionals/Insiders posting in this thread:


10ofRods is a Verified Anthropologist
Angleterre is a Verified LE from England
riolove77 is a Verified Attorney (prosecutor)
Alethea is a Verified Attorney (defense)
otto is a Verified Expert
Chomsky is a Verified Attorney
angelainwi is a Certified Trauma Counselor
gitana1 is a Verified Attorney
Cassidy is a Verified Attorney
lamlawindy is a Verified Attorney (former Prosecutor, now Defence)
NatureLover (Verified friend of the Moorman family)

Thread #41 Thread #42 Thread #43 Thread #44 Thread #45 Thread #46 Thread #47 Thread #48 Thread #49 Thread #50 Thread #51 Thread #52 Thread #53 Thread #54 Thread #55 Thread #56 Thread #57 Thread #58 Thread #59 Thread #60 Thread #61 Thread #62 Thread #63 Thread #64
Thread #65 Thread #66 Thread #67 Thread #68 Thread #69 Thread #70
Thread #71 Thread #72 Thread #73 Thread #74 Thread #75 Thread #76

Thread #77
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please continue discussion here in accordance with The Rules:

Quick rundown of reminders from prior threads:

Rumors are not allowed.

*As Barry Morphew has now been charged with Suzanne's murder, he and his businesses are now open to sleuthing.*

Do not sleuth or make accusations against anyone who is not an officially named POI/suspect.

If an approved source discusses rumors or family members, it is still NOT allowed to do so at Websleuths. WS has different standards.

Preview your posts to avoid broken quotes.

Lengthy personal anecdotes are off topic. Stay on topic.

Discuss the case and not each other; state your opinion and move one without arguing or bickering.

Random youtube videos or blogs are not allowed unless approval is given by Tricia or Admin.

Approved sources are MSM, LE, Profiling Evil podcast, Lauren Scharf podcast or social media, Investigation Discovery, Crimeonline, Tyson Draper (only the interview with Barry Morphew), public documents.

Do not discuss removed posts or question/challenge moderation on the thread. Doing so is subject to an automatic Time Out.

(* Admin Edit: to indicate that sleuthing Barry Morphew is now allowed)
 
@IRBHTX Here's the judge's language about the AA, in context BBM:

"For the reasons that follow, the Court finds the nature of the affidavit and protection of the Morphew daughters each serve as substantial interests in justifying the continued sealing of the Affidavit under Rule 55.1.

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 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."

Judge Murphy repeatedly refers to himself formally, as "the Court" throughout his written decision. I believe it's a reasonable inference from this that he found probable cause and signed the arrest warrant. How else would he be in a position to say that part of the information was not relevant to that decision? If he had no confidence in the AA, why would he do that?

The judge was not expressing doubts about the sufficiency of the affidavit's contents IMO. To sum it up in my own words, he was saying only this in the context of the decision: that the lengthy and detailed affidavit would require a substantial amount of editing that would take time and require input from both parties. The nature of the affidavit was thus a substantial interest requiring that it be held until that job could be done.

All MOO, of course.
 
So I am reading it as the AA had a lot of information that wasn't presented today that might be sensitive to the girls, maybe things they reported to police or things that were reported about them, their mother or father, that don't have anything to do with the case. Those things wouldn't have been brought up today so it's likely we didn't even hear about the things the judge was concerned about that were in the AA.
 
Y’all still don’t understand why the AA was sealed?

16 when her Mom disappeared.
13 or 14 when they moved to Colorado.
JMO


https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...udge-set-to-rule-on-advancing-case-on-sept-17



In a redirect, DA Jeff Lindsey questioned if Macy, one of Suzanne’s daughters, knew that her mother was going to leave Barry. In texts to Sheila, Suzanne wrote that Macy suggested that they could move to Salida and get jobs and even suggested a restraining order.

“Macy assured me it would be find,” the texts reportedly stated. “Why don’t you do it without telling him,” Macy allegedly wrote, and, at one point, got so fired up she told Barry to leave Suzanne alone.

Nielsen objected, saying Suzanne lied to Sheila on several occasions and that this was Suzanne’s interpretation not coming directly from Macy.

The hearing moved on to the issue of Barry striking Suzanne. Grusing says there was such an incident, but that Barry said it was an accident where he apparently clipped the side of her nose with his hand.
 
So I am reading it as the AA had a lot of information that wasn't presented today that might be sensitive to the girls, maybe things they reported to police or things that were reported about them, their mother or father, that don't have anything to do with the case. Those things wouldn't have been brought up today so it's likely we didn't even hear about the things the judge was concerned about that were in the AA.
I have been wondering about this. Including unknown male fluids and dna found in the back seat of mom’s car. Maybe there are things in that AA that are not relevant to this case but are relevant to these young girls lives. To me BM wouldn’t even care as long as it’s not him. Maybe judge is looking out for the girls better than their own father cared to do. I mean BM in his own words said he did only care about money and hunting.
 
@IRBHTX Here's the judge's language about the AA, in context BBM:

"For the reasons that follow, the Court finds the nature of the affidavit and protection of the Morphew daughters each serve as substantial interests in justifying the continued sealing of the Affidavit under Rule 55.1.

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 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."

Judge Murphy repeatedly refers to himself formally, as "the Court" throughout his written decision. I believe it's a reasonable inference from this that he found probable cause and signed the arrest warrant. How else would he be in a position to say that part of the information was not relevant to that decision? If he had no confidence in the AA, why would he do that?

The judge was not expressing doubts about the sufficiency of the affidavit's contents IMO. To sum it up in my own words, he was saying only this in the context of the decision: that the lengthy and detailed affidavit would require a substantial amount of editing that would take time and require input from both parties. The nature of the affidavit was thus a substantial interest requiring that it be held until that job could be done.

All MOO, of course.
(1) So you believe Judge Murphy is "the Court" that signed off on the arrest? (2) And that redaction was his main concern?

I don't think that (1) is correct. I think a different judge did that, which weakens your reasoning.

With regard to (2), I believe the MSM motion was correct in questioning whether the redaction being time consuming and would hold up the defense's investigation (which the law does not recognize as probative) was good legal reasoning. As the MSM indicated, justice does not depend on the convenience of the parties, it depends on following the law, the public's presumptive right to know in a speedy manner.
JMHO
 
So I am reading it as the AA had a lot of information that wasn't presented today that might be sensitive to the girls, maybe things they reported to police or things that were reported about them, their mother or father, that don't have anything to do with the case. Those things wouldn't have been brought up today so it's likely we didn't even hear about the things the judge was concerned about that were in the AA.
I dunno. The rules of evidence allow for a lot of leeway during the preliminary hearing, so many of those things the judge was concerned about may very well have been presented.

There’s just no way of knowing at this stage.

So I tend to think redactions are for the most part, a moot point, as is its unsealing.

Who knows though.
 
so sealing the AA to protect the daughters. How does that protect them?
From the media maybe?
It's all gonna come out anyway...

I have a feeling that when we're finally able to read the AA ourselves (unless its crazy redacted) we'll finally understand the judge's ruling on this. I suspect there is indeed more upsetting info to come out.

jmo
 
Y’all still don’t understand why the AA was sealed?
JMO


https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...udge-set-to-rule-on-advancing-case-on-sept-17



In a redirect, DA Jeff Lindsey questioned if Macy, one of Suzanne’s daughters, knew that her mother was going to leave Barry. In texts to Sheila, Suzanne wrote that Macy suggested that they could move to Salida and get jobs and even suggested a restraining order.

“Macy assured me it would be find,” the texts reportedly stated. “Why don’t you do it without telling him,” Macy allegedly wrote, and, at one point, got so fired up she told Barry to leave Suzanne alone.

Nielsen objected, saying Suzanne lied to Sheila on several occasions and that this was Suzanne’s interpretation not coming directly from Macy.

The hearing moved on to the issue of Barry striking Suzanne. Grusing says there was such an incident, but that Barry said it was an accident where he apparently clipped the side of her nose with his hand.
Huh? I guess you'll have to indulge me and spell it out.
 
The judge failed to rule today at the conclusion of the PH whether or not the state met their burden to bind BM over to trial. He also failed to rule if the State met PEPG (i.e., whether or not BM will be denied bail after being charged with a capital offense - 1st-degree murder).

ETA: To be clear, Judge Murphy has made it known that time is of the essence given the defendant is being held in jail, and the Sept 17, 2021 in-person hearing date to deliver the ruling, is due to the calendars of all the parties.

Ashley Franco@AshleyKKTV

Replying to
@AshleyKKTV
Important note- The judge said today it would be hard to find a date that all parties involved would be available, you're looking at two large teams on both the prosecutions and defense sides who likely have other cases that already have dates set for hearings.
@KKTV11News

1:40 PM · Aug 24, 2021·
 
(1) So you believe Judge Murphy is "the Court" that signed off on the arrest? (2) And that redaction was his main concern?

I don't think that (1) is correct. I think a different judge did that, which weakens your reasoning.

With regard to (2), I believe the MSM motion was correct in questioning whether the redaction being time consuming and would hold up the defense's investigation (which the law does not recognize as probative) was good legal reasoning. As the MSM indicated, justice does not depend on the convenience of the parties, it depends on following the law, the public's presumptive right to know in a speedy manner.
JMHO
IIRC, Patrick Murphy also needed time to prepare his decision for not releasing the AA. And at this point, I am scratching my head to make sense of that reasoning. With all that he knows about this case, I don't understand his need to prolong the decision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
246
Guests online
2,046
Total visitors
2,292

Forum statistics

Threads
599,687
Messages
18,098,126
Members
230,901
Latest member
IamNobody
Back
Top