CO - BARRY ARRESTED AGAIN - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #119

Seattle1 said:

I believe only the hearing for the Intervenors and their Attorney was vacated, but the virtual status hearing for Team Morphew is still slated for 3/30/26. They have a big Motions filing deadline looming on April 13 (that will be heard over multiple days in July).

Click to expand...

Yes, that's right, this last order does say:

Counsel for the Prosecution and for the Defense should nonetheless appear via Webex Conferencing for a status conference on the motion filing issue raised by the Defense on March 9th.

Click to expand...

I would hope the video will still be available.

girlhasnoname said:

Grusing yes, my future husband. Hah

I've seen multiple interviews with him from various crime related shows and the man is mesmerizing. Soft spoken, but confident. Extremely well versed in the law, but also in human nature. I know if he ever interviewed me I would tell ALL THE SECRETS within the first 5 minutes. The Bureau lost one of the best when he retired.

I find it deeply satisfying that BM really thought Agent Grusing was his true friend, not an FBI Agent working on a case against him schooling him like a 3rd grader. Heehee, Ole' Bare the motormouth, not the sharpest crayon in the box to say the least.

HAHAHAHA - That speaks to Grusing's ability and to BM's idiocy.

JMO

#Justice4Suzanne

Click to expand...

Thank you for the background @girlhasnoname …… and those other interests…..

Ps…. Helping my recollection…… is Grusing also the investigator, that IIRC when BM said early on in the investigation questioning of him …… something along the lines of he was afraid he would be ‘wrongfully charged’ - the investigator assured him not to worry. He wouldn’t be wrongfully charged if that occurred? Was that Grusing?

If so, would have loved to have seen the response on each of their faces when that occurred. And to have knowledge of the thoughts simultaneously in their minds then. Maybe there is video of that? MOO

I am not Sherlock H. said:

Thank you for the background @girlhasnoname …… and those other interests…..

Ps…. Helping my recollection…… is Grusing also the investigator, that IIRC when BM said early on in the investigation questioning of him …… something along the lines of he was afraid he would be ‘wrongfully charged’ - the investigator assured him not to worry. He wouldn’t be wrongfully charged if that occurred? Was that Grusing?

If so, would have loved to have seen the response on each of their faces when that occurred. And to have knowledge of the thoughts simultaneously in their minds then. Maybe there is video of that? MOO

Click to expand...

Yes, that was JG, according to the OG case affidavit.

Per the affidavit, Mr. .132 asked if he could be given immunity. JG asked immunity for what, and BM said in case somebody falsely convicts me, or something.

Whereupon Jonny Grusing responded, "You won't be falsely convicted."

I'm sure the implications of that word "falsely" completely sailed over Barry's head.
He probably felt relieved.

I doubt he's capable of understanding irony, or innuendo, or nuance, or anything beyond "Me Tarzan, You Jane" level comms.

JMO.

girlhasnoname said:

Grusing yes, my future husband. Hah

I've seen multiple interviews with him from various crime related shows and the man is mesmerizing. Soft spoken, but confident. Extremely well versed in the law, but also in human nature. I know if he ever interviewed me I would tell ALL THE SECRETS within the first 5 minutes. The Bureau lost one of the best when he retired.

I find it deeply satisfying that BM really thought Agent Grusing was his true friend, not an FBI Agent working on a case against him schooling him like a 3rd grader. Heehee, Ole' Bare the motormouth, not the sharpest crayon in the box to say the least.

Click to expand...

YES. In fact, Grusing treated BM very much like he treated Mark Redwine. Grusing 'befriended' them and would just stop by to hang out and talk. Then he would sit back and listen to them saying incriminating things off the top of their heads because that's what guilty people do.

Redwine was trying to convince Grusing about how worried he was about his son Dylan, not being home when he arrived to pick him up. He called all of Dylan's friends and called Dylan's brother and Mom. Grusing asked 'what did you do next?" I TOOK A NAP. " ---what a moron...

girlhasnoname said:

HAHAHAHA - That speaks to Grusing's ability and to BM's idiocy.

JMO

#Justice4Suzanne

Click to expand...

Seattle1 said:

I believe only the hearing for the Intervenors and their Attorney was vacated, but the virtual status hearing for Team Morphew is still slated for 3/30/26. They have a big Motions filing deadline looming on April 13 (that will be heard over multiple days in July).

Click to expand...

Yes - there IS a hearing on 3/30/26 on "other" matters to be taken care of.

Megnut said:

All this posturing is quite sad.

False war cry.

The outrage shouldn't be at the State for shelving Suzanne's remains. Barry is the ogre here. It's Barry's fault she's on a shelf at all.

It's important to remember who the villain is.

One dead, countless harmed.

None of it had to happen.

JMO

Click to expand...

Not only is it Barry's fault for her needing to be put on a shelf, he also left her on that shelf for two years! I feel so sad for Suzanne's family and wish they could have her remains to show Suzanne who truly loves and respects her.

girlhasnoname said:

Why do they keep calling the Morphew young ladies children???? The are both of legal age. Am I missing something?

Click to expand...

Your children are always your children regardless of age. They may not be minor children but by definition they are still a person’s children.

Momofthreeboys said:

Your children are always your children regardless of age. They may not be minor children but by definition they are still a person’s children.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that statement, but in referencing them at the this age as 'children' vs daughters, I tend to think it is a calculated move on the Defenses's part. JMO

Momofthreeboys said:

Your children are always your children regardless of age. They may not be minor children but by definition they are still a person’s children.

Click to expand...

While I understand your point and the sentiment someone’s children are always their children regardless of their age, notwithstanding the law defines any individual over the age of 18 to be legally an adult, imo for a court/Judge or any other court official to refer to or address the adult offspring of an accused defendant(s) as ‘children’ in open court is not only inappropriate and poor judgement, infantilizes them and imo even worse, is misleading and can be interpreted by the public/court observers and potentially some jury members, as biased and/or trying to garner sympathy for the accused defendant.

Therefore, imo it follows that the court/Judge and other court officials’ in this particular case appropriately and unbiasedly refer to BM’s adult offspring as- the defendant’s daughters or adult children, or imo more appropriately- the Morphew’s daughters or their adult children since MM1 and MM2 are the defendant AND the victim Suzanne’s daughters, and/or by their respective individual names- Mallory Morphew and
Macy Morphew.

IMHO

#JUSTICEFORSUZANNE

ETA-clarity

Seattle1 said:

From the proceeding provided below, we learned that the Court had not yet received the defendant's report for his GPS device monitoring (but Hopkins was sure to put it on the record that Morphew's reporting history indicates he typically complies long before the due date.... ).

The Defense Team was given multiple opportunities to address/update the Court with any status information, and they remained silent on the 3/6/26 Motion to Withdraw by the Office of Public Defender, and any other related Defense Motion unknown/unavailable to the Public, resulting in the 3/9/26 Order by the Court re. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AT STATE EXPENSE OTHER THAN THE PUBLIC DEFENDER [i.e., ADC Appointment].

IMO, ignoring the opportunity to be transparent here was intentional, just as withholding the related Motions from the Public's link to Court Docs.

Instead, the Court gave the floor to the Attorney for the Intervenors, where as a matter of law, there should be no standing, and similarly to the Court's October 2022 Order, there is no basis to return evidence being lawfully held for future prosecution. (SM's remains were obtained under a valid search warrant). MOO.

Click to expand...

I take exception to your suggestion that something's wrong about Judge H's decisions here, or defense counsel's. I'll comment on each issue separately, with due respect:

1. "From the proceeding provided below, we learned that the Court had not yet received the defendant's report for his GPS device monitoring (but Hopkins was sure to put it on the record that Morphew's reporting history indicates he typically complies long before the due date.... )." BBM

The suggestion - that the judge went out of her way to compliment Morphew - is based on a misrepresentation of fact. The judge actually reported to counsel that the monitoring company had not provided its report in their usual timeframe, and she asked Morphew's counsel to contact the company and make sure it gets filed. I don't see what else she could have said. She did not compliment Morphew.

2. "The Defense Team was given multiple opportunities to address/update the Court with any status information, and they remained silent on the 3/6/26 Motion to Withdraw by the Office of Public Defender, and any other related Defense Motion unknown/unavailable to the Public, resulting in the 3/9/26 Order by the Court re. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AT STATE EXPENSE OTHER THAN THE PUBLIC DEFENDER [i.e., ADC Appointment]. IMO, ignoring the opportunity to be transparent here was intentional, just as withholding the related Motions from the Public's link to Court Docs."

Courts withhold some documents from the public for a variety of sound reasons. Of course it is intentional, and of course attorneys for the parties respect the court's decision to do so. However, this is not deceptive. We are not entitled to know the factual and ethical basis for the Public Defender's assertion of a conflict of interest. As members of the public, our interest is in seeing that the defendant is represented by competent legal counsel and that his rights as a citizen (our rights) are respected.

My guess is that the PD represents a named witness on a criminal charge, and that it would be prejudicial to reveal that information before the witness is actually called and the court determines that it is relevant for impeachment. Of course Morphew raised no objection to the PD's motion to withdraw - he was not adversely affected by it. Any suggestion that defense counsel had some kind of duty to comment on or dispute these motions, and that their failure to do so is somehow suspect, is absurd.

3. "Instead, the Court gave the floor to the Attorney for the Intervenors, where as a matter of law, there should be no standing, and similarly to the Court's October 2022 Order, there is no basis to return evidence being lawfully held for future prosecution. (SM's remains were obtained under a valid search warrant)."

In his status report, defense counsel alerted the court that although they were working diligently to review all discovery recent disclosures (February and March) amounted to between 800 and 900 gigabytes of data and that the time required to review and integrate this information into Morphew's motions might prevent them from meeting the April deadline for filing motions. He went out of his way to advise the court that he intended no criticism of the prosecutors, who had worked with them diligently to respond to requests. The DA indicated that the recent disclosures were in the nature of expert evidence and were provided to the defense months in advance of the actual deadline for such disclosures in the interest of moving the case forward. This was the main purpose of the status report.

Only after hearing about the status of the criminal case did the judge turn to counsel for the intervenors. She asked if they wanted a hearing on their motion, and advised them that she would be considering first whether they had standing to intervene. They asked for an in-person hearing, and the judge offered the DA an opportunity to address the issues. Kelly said that since the judge had already found probable cause for seizure of SM's remains, the substantive issue could be decided on written motions alone. She asked for additional time to respond in writing to the motion. The judge gave Kelly her time, but said that in the spirit of the Victim's Rights Act she would give the intervenors a hearing since they requested it. The judge asked defense counsel for their position: DB said that Morphew supports his daughters emotionally, as a father. but that he takes no legal position on the motion to intervene.

The judge previously determined that probable cause existed for the search and seizure at the nursing home. Only the nursing home has standing to challenge that determination. Barry doesn't, and his legal interests are aligned with the intervenors, so of course he took no legal position.

The intervention was a Hail Mary attempt to test whether the judge was sympathetic to the daughters to an extent that would affect her legal judgement to Morphew's advantage. The judge passed the test IMO. She'll hear them out as she is obliged to do under the Victim Rights Act, but her comments signaled strongly that the standing issue could be dispositive and they'd be wasting their time and money on an in-person hearing. (In the end, the intervenors folded.)

In any case, this was a status conference not a motion hearing, and the issue was not procedurally ripe to be decided because the DA had not filed a formal response. So the judge set a time for the response and said she'd grant the in-person hearing if the intervenors wished. Any suggestion that she should have dismissed the motion to intervene without following procedure or respecting the rights of victims to be heard is nonsense.

I'll be thrilled when this religious hypocrite, lying murderer finally gets to Court and is found guilty by a jury of his peers. BM will be the animal he so loves to hunt, locked up in a cage, which will be a fate worse than death to him. I feel confident the jurors will add up all the 'coincidences', see through his voluminous, outrageous lies and realize it was him and only him.

Spend the rest of your days in a cage Loser Dude, I hope your remaining life will be as miserable as Suzanne's life was married to a pathetic, insecure NARC like you.

#Justice4Suzanne

JMO

MellowMonday said:

Not only is it Barry's fault for her needing to be put on a shelf, he also left her on that shelf for two years! I feel so sad for Suzanne's family and wish they could have her remains to show Suzanne who truly loves and respects her.

Click to expand...

@MellowMonday

I too wish Suzanne could be put to rest by her dear Mom back in her home state.

Her Mom was her rock. Surely the daughters know this? I know its only physical and she is already reunited spiritually with her Mom but it just seems right

Lets get BarryLee off the streets and in to a cell for life and then Suzanne back "home".

And on my wish list would be that after the conviction, Suzanne's daughter's join the Morman family in a memorial in Indiana at the grave site.

Maybe they will all cross paths at the trial and their hearts will soften toward one another

waldojabba said:

@MellowMonday

I too wish Suzanne could be put to rest by her dear Mom back in her home state.

Her Mom was her rock. Surely the daughters know this? I know its only physical and she is already reunited spiritually with her Mom but it just seems right

Lets get BarryLee off the streets and in to a cell for life and then Suzanne back "home".

And on my wish list would be that after the conviction, Suzanne's daughter's join the Morman family in a memorial in Indiana at the grave site.

Maybe they will all cross paths at the trial and their hearts will soften toward one another

Click to expand...

Hope Suzanne does get to go home for her final resting place, where people who loved her can go and be with her, think that would be what she would have wanted. Hope her daughters remember enough of their Mam, (and not what Barry may have chombled in their ears) to see this and do it.

Moo

Who requested copy of transcript of own G.J. testimony?

MassGuy said:

https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/People%27s%20Unopposed%20Motion%20for%20Limited%20Release%20of%20Grand%20Jury%20Materials_Redacted_Redacted.pdf

Click to expand...

@MassGuy Thx for the link.

From p. 3, ¶ 9 of link:
"9. The People ask that the Court specify it is granting witness XXXXXXXX a copy of the transcript of XXXXX own testimony and any related exhibits. Prior to receiving the transcripts, XXXXXXX would sign theappropriate oath of affirmation."

Sorry to be dense, if the answer is obvious, but which G. J. witness made this request?

al66pine said:

Who requested copy of transcript of own G.J. testimony?

@MassGuy Thx for the link.

From p. 3, ¶ 9 of link:
"9. The People ask that the Court specify it is granting witness XXXXXXXX a copy of the transcript of XXXXX own testimony and any related exhibits. Prior to receiving the transcripts, XXXXXXX would sign theappropriate oath of affirmation."

Sorry to be dense, if the answer is obvious, but which G. J. witness made this request?

Click to expand...

We don't know. From what I can gather, the defense can request to interview a particular witness, but that witness does not have to comply. Apparently this one did, and wanted access to their testimony prior to meeting with the defense.

I don't have the slightest clue who this could be. Anyone from Shoshona to Barry's military buddy, and everyone in between (could be someone we've never heard of too).

al66pine said:

Who requested copy of transcript of own G.J. testimony?

@MassGuy Thx for the link.

From p. 3, ¶ 9 of link:
"9. The People ask that the Court specify it is granting witness XXXXXXXX a copy of the transcript of XXXXX own testimony and any related exhibits. Prior to receiving the transcripts, XXXXXXX would sign theappropriate oath of affirmation."

Sorry to be dense, if the answer is obvious, but which G. J. witness made this request?

Click to expand...

The $64,000 question.

Somebody who wants exhibits and transcripts in order to prepare with the Defense.

Curious.

JMO

Megnut said:

The $64,000 question.

Somebody who wants exhibits and transcripts in order to prepare with the Defense.

Curious.

JMO

Click to expand...

I think this is a prosecution witness.

MassGuy said:

I think this is a prosecution witness.

Click to expand...

#4 is what gave me pause.

4. [name redacted] is now requesting a copy of transcript so that can prepare for a meeting with
the defense in the case and to prepare for future testimony generally.

I wonder if it's an expert witness for the State. That would compute.

JMO