A (3:24)

Absolutely. So, you guys, last time we left off, of course, with Barry being arrested, remember, there wasn't just the suspicion of the murder of his wife, but also that presidential ballot voter fraud that he submitted in her name. And then kind of by not accident, but not because of the man himself, the police found out that Suzanne was having an affair for two years before she disappeared. This brings us to September 20, 2021. Barry had been in prison, but he's released from jail on a $500,000 bond. Now, some of you may be thinking you get out for half a million dollars for murder sometimes depends on the state. And yes, this happens not infrequently. Then, December 2021, the judge who's initially assigned to preside over the case removed himself after the defense raised questions about a potential conflict of interest. So the reasoning for this was a bit convoluted. It was apparently because the judge was friends with a lawyer who represented a witness, not represented the defendant, but a witness. So we've talked a lot about conflicts of interest and whatnot on our other podcasts, legal briefs. Generally, there's like an actual conflict of interest, and then there's the appearance of conflict of interest where there's not an actual conflict, but you want to make sure that the public has confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, so you remove yourself. This feels like a very tangential relationship that may not even rise to the level of an appearance of bias, but there you have it. And it might just be that the judge wanted off the case. So who knows what actually happens behind closed doors, but the judge removes himself from the case. February 2022. This murder trial has already drawn a lot of attention. It's moved from Chaffey county to Fremont County. And officials stated that the reason for moving the place of the trial is, quote, because of the size of the community and the pervasive negative pretrial publicity since Suzanne Morphew's disappearance, the court finds that a fair trial cannot take place in Chaffey County. This is a high profile case in a relatively small county with a small jury pool, the media saturation is high. So that sounds reasonable. We've seen this in lots of cases. And so this case is now moved to a neighboring county. March 1, 2022. Did you want to Add something about the saturation of media.

B (5:44)

Oh, no. But I can if you want me to.

A (5:46)

You can if you want. I. I just do wonder how, like, the saturation of media occurs when it's. No, like, Fremont county that's saturated with media. It's like YouTube.

B (5:55)

You know, I agree with you 100% on this, and you see this all the time, And I just feel like so much of what we do in the courts when it comes to media exposure is stuck in, like, the 1950s, and I just don't know that it works. You can't tell me. And. And now, look, his lawyers may very well have done some research on this, because in cases where the defendant has some resources, they will do surveys. In fact, this happened in the Kohberger case, and there was some question of whether they were using the survey to taint the jury pool. And so that was somewhat of a question. But they'll do surveys to see, does anybody actually know who this person is? But, yeah, I mean, I would think the entire state. This is the story. I mean, this was a story across the nation. It would surprise me if one county to another, all of a sudden you have a dramatic drop off in saturation. But whatever, they did it, and so be it then.

A (6:46)

March 1, 2022, Barry's attorneys asked for a dismissal of the case after they received an internal affairs document surrounding the Colorado Bureau of Investigations agent in charge, Joe Cahill. In a court filing, the prosecution claimed that the defense was taking, quote, bits and pieces out of context. I mean, everything's actually out of context, technically, right? You don't read the entire document of everything. But in this document, the defense attorney claimed that the arrest of Barry is the worst decision that could have been made. And he went on. The arrest of the suspect in this investigation was premature, and he called it hasty.

B (7:26)

That was actually the investigator.

A (7:27)

Oh, the investigator.

B (7:28)

The defendant, defense attorney. Yeah. Oh, that was. What they were pointing to, is the investigator himself saying, this was a hasty charge.

A (7:36)

And that's really interesting, Right? So on the investigation team, you often have disagreements among the investigative team itself. We've talked about this a lot, where we get an investigative file from an agent, and they're, like, ready to arrest. Go for it. 90% of the time, the prosecutors, us, at least our experience is like, hey, why don't you go talk to these people? And we need to pull these records. I see these holes in what I need for the investigative file, and sometimes not infrequently, because there's a little pride of ownership of your Case file, The agent will, unless you have a good relationship with them, will say, no, no, no. It's all in there. You have everything you need for probable cause? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Maybe for probable cause. I'm thinking about trial beyond a reasonable doubt. I want to make sure I know what the girlfriend says, and I want to know where the car was registered on this date. Fine. I'll do what you say. That's a very typical conversation. And it can go the other way as well, which seems to be happening in this case.

B (8:26)

And look, this part of the filing. We're about to get to some more significant parts of this filing. This part of the filing is purely for the media. This is completely irrelevant for a judge. Judge doesn't care what the investigator thought. It's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter at all. But you put this in the filing, the media picks up on it, and they run with it. Investigator in charge says not enough to charge. Barry Morphew disagrees with the opinion to charge. The same thing you remember from Delphi had one or two officers who were still enamored with the Odinist theory. And the defense went all in on that. Well, see, there were some police officers who thought this was relevant. And it doesn't really matter for the purposes of the legal filing, but it can be powerful for the media.

A (9:10)

But what the defense does point to in the same filing is very, very bad. Because the defense team doesn't just say, hey, we need to dismiss. They actually move for sanctions. And we've talked about how sanctions is a big deal. You don't just ask for sanctions left and right. They do it because they say that there's been a massive failure on the part of the state to turn over evidence in Barry's case. And this included DNA from an unknown male found on Suzanne's bike, her bike helmet, and inside of her car. Okay, now we're talking about something big. Doesn't stop there. Not only is it an unknown male DNA that's not Barry's when they put it into codis, there's a hit on an unknown male linked to sexual assault in other states. So the prosecution knew about this unknown male DNA for five months before they arrested Barry. Not good. That is bad.

B (10:08)

Yeah, and we talk about this all the time. Most discovery violation claims are just. They're junk, right? They're silly little claims about things that don't matter. Or they're really just arguments about whether or not something's even relevant or what form it should come in. This is real. I mean, this is a real problem and a real claim. And you can understand, just as a human being out there, why the prosecution wouldn't want to turn this over. Because it's really bad for their case. Right? I mean, this is. Look, we don't yet know.

A (10:42)

This is like the Leo Scofield case.

B (10:44)

It is like. I mean, now, the one thing I will say about this, I think the defense overstates the significance of the DNA. It should have been turned over from the beginning. No. No question. But the reality is that I can find from digging into this is you have some partial DNA hits. It's a little unclear how strong those hits are. But remember, we just did West Memphis 3, where we had just item after item after item after item where it was. It could be this person. It could be this person or 10% of the population or 3% of the population or 1.5% of the population. Right. And so because of that, they could never really narrow it down and tag it to a defendant or say, oh, no, this is the victims, or this is an alternative suspect. They could never do that. It's a little unclear how tight this connection is. If at trial, the defense walks in and says, look, there's DNA. If there is truly DNA on the bike, on the bike helmet and in the car, that is all the same from the same person, and it matches someone wanted, an unknown subject known for sexual assaults. And it's not Barry, which is not. That's sort of reasonable doubt personified. Right. Like, no matter how much evidence you have against Barry, and as we talked about last time, they have a lot. If that's true. Wow. I mean, I don't even know. I'm trying to think of the innocuous explanation for that. The reality of the situation is probably this doesn't actually match each other and doesn't actually match in codis. It's probably some very degraded DNA that, like, matches this sex offender in CODIS and 85% of the male population or something like that. Right. But. But I don't know exactly. It hasn't really been fleshed out fully. All I know is it is a partial match, not a complete match. The percentages there I have not seen. If you know that information, I'd be happy to hear about it. It definitely is something. If this goes to trial, and I think it will go to trial, that we will learn a lot about and really will be the key to the defense in this case. We've talked about some of the dude did it defense before. This is evidence that absolutely comes in. I mean, there's no question they'll be able to present this, and it will be interesting to see just how strong it ends up being. But regardless of how strong it is, there's no question it should have been turned over. I mean, this is a plain discovery violation. And it wasn't the only one. They're not only not turning this over, they're also missing deadlines on other stuff, like they're cell phone experts. I mean, the court keeps extending their deadline to turn this stuff over, and they just keep not doing it. So it becomes a huge issue.

A (13:34)

And understandably, the judge is not happy. And the judge comes back and very harshly bars 12 of the prosecution's 14 witnesses. So almost their entire case, and excludes pH, GPS and truck data, which I don't really know what's left of the case at this point for the prosecution. So that's a huge blow to the prosecution.

B (13:54)

And look, we've talked about sanctions before, and this may seem a little strange to you. If you're just out there in the world, you're like, why would you bar the witnesses just because the prosecution messed up? Like, isn't there a better way to do this? You know, it's kind of like if you're a fan of football back in. They don't do this anymore because now we just pay players. Like, it's going out of style. But back in the day, if, like, your team five years ago cheated, you would punish the team today, even though, like, the coaches and all the players are completely different. But it was just. That was just the way you did it, because you wanted to send a message, hey, you need to be better in the future. And it's a similar thing here. Like, Suzanne Morphew needs justice. We have this evidence against Suzanne Morphew. It should come in, but the prosecution has messed up, and so we have to punish them in some way. And the punishment very rarely is dismissing the case. Very rarely. I mean, it has to be like, the prosecution knew about the DNA and destroyed it on purpose to keep Barry Morphew from being able to use it. That would be the kind of thing that would lead to a dismissal of a case. Usually it's this kind of stuff. And what's weird about it is there is typically a remedy for this that the prosecution can pursue, and they did it in this case. On April 19, 2022, the judge dismissed the case against Barry Morphew, but not on the movement of the defense. Not because the defense had asked for it to be dismissed, but because the prosecution had asked for it to be dismissed without prejudice. To explain this briefly, we talked about double jeopardy. Double jeopardy attaches once the jury is seated. If you have a dismissal after that. And it's the fault of the prosecution that can often bar retrial. In this case, this was nine days, nine days before jury selection and the trial were scheduled to start. And the whole idea behind this, the state, they said, hey, we've decided we really want to find Suzanne's body because they had not found it. That's really a critical piece of evidence. We haven't found that yet. So we're going to dismiss the case. But everybody knew the real reason they were dismissing it. Because if you dismiss your indictment and you bring a new indictment, then all of these discovery issues typically are sorted. Because now if you just turn over the evidence in the regular course of business, the defense has the opportunity to consider it, to get experts, all the reasons you wanted to turn it over in the first place. So dismissal usually deals with that. Now, where this can be problematic for you is if you're in a state or the federal system where you have a speedy trial issue, like dismissing the case does not reset the speedy trial clock. Sometimes if you dismiss the case, you really have very little time to bring a new case because of that speedy trial clock, the way it's been running. But that is a state by state issue. It does not seem like it was a problem. In Colorado, they dismissed the case without prejudice. Without prejudice means you can bring it again if it were dismissed with prejudice. Remember the Alec Baldwin case? His trial was dismissed without prejudice, jeopardy and attached. He can never be tried again. Dismissed without prejudice means you can bring it. So really, this was the best thing for the prosecution. Just say, hey, fine, we messed up. We're dismissing this case. We'll try again later. So in July of that year, morphew would plead guilty to ballot forgery, would receive one year of supervised probation. So, you know, he got that vote in, but he did have to plead guilty to that. I would be interested to read the sentencing transcript in that case, because the fact he probably killed his wife is something the judge could have considered in sentencing him for this ballot issue.

A (17:38)

And I wonder what it goes into the mens re of it, because you can imagine a world where it's like, I know that she would want to vote for him, and she's not dead. She's out there. I just, I don't want her to have. Do you know what I mean? There's like a men's Right. Aspect of, I don't know why he.

B (17:52)

Didn'T say that when he got arrested instead of being like, I really want Donald Trump to win, so I'm giving him another vote.

A (17:56)

So stupid. Right? Yeah.

B (17:58)

Say that she was a huge trumpet.

A (18:00)

Really interesting about it because, like, that is absolutely a question to ask. Like, why did you submit it because you thought she was dead? Why do you think she's dead? How do you know she was dead? What did you have to do with her death?

B (18:09)

Like, yeah, she's been kidnapped and I didn't want her to lose. Her right to vote because of the kidnappers would have been a much better argument. But anyway, so he pleads guilty to that. And so then. And this is like just the cajones, right? The gall of this man. On May 2, 2023, he files a 15 million dollar civil suit against several prosecutors, Chaffey county, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the FBI, alleging that they had violated his civil rights when they arrested him and charged him with a crime that they should have known he had no involvement in committing.

A (18:49)

The evidence is not in his favor on this, and we know this because of what will happen later in the case as well. So September 22, 2023, some human remains are found in this, like, small shallow grave in Sagwatch County, Colorado, near Highway 17. Now, these remains are found just a few hundred feet down a dirt road off the highway. And the location though, is less than an hour of the Morphew residents by main highways. These remains were ultimately determined to be those of Suzanne Morphew at that point had been so degraded, you couldn't tell just by looking at them. The majority of her bones had been recovered and many of the bones were significantly bleached. So along with Suzanne's bones, police also found a cancer port because, remember, she had beat cancer twice. And items of clothing, some of which were consistent with the bike clothing that Suzanne was known to wear. There were no visible signs of perimortem trauma.

B (19:47)

To see now immediately you might be thinking to yourself, if she was buried, why were her bones significantly bleached? And that's the first sign you have that this was not the initial location where she was left.

A (20:06)

So then we had forensic anthropologists, a botanist and an entomologist all analyze the remains, and they noted several things. So first, there's a distinct lack of bug activity. I know we talked a lot about this in the West Memphis Three case. What does this tell us? Okay, so this tells us that the remains likely did not decompose where they were found if there was a lack of bug activity, because basically she'd been decomposed by the time she was dropped where she was ultimately found. And her clothes lacked evidence of decomposition, which, again, is inconsistent with Suzanne Morphew wearing the bike clothes at the time her body decomposed. So I guess the idea is that the clothes were, like, thrown there, but were not on her body as she was decomposing. In addition, there's a lack of animal predation on the bones, and there was a very, very small amount of desiccated soft tissue that was found on a few of the bones. And there was no hair mass located. So all of these features would have been expected if where Suzanne was found was the original location of her death and decomposition. So the forensic anthropologist opined that based on all of these strange factors that he was seeing, it was unlikely that Suzanne decomposed from a fresh body to the skeleton that was ultimately found there. In other words, her body had been moved after death.

B (21:31)

I think there's a couple things that are worth talking about here. I mean, number one to me, and I just wish we had Julia on the show all the time. To me, this is an indication of someone that knew her. Because if you're a random person who just came upon her and murdered her, if you hit her with your car while she was on her bike, for instance, if you kidnapped her, raped her and murdered her, right? If you did any of those things and you left her body in a place where she decomposed long enough that her bones are bleached by the sun, that all the animal activity happens, all the bug activity happens, all that stuff, why in the world would you then come back? She's not found, years passed, and she's not found. Why would you come back and take the extraordinary risk of collecting those bones, taking them somewhere else, burying them, why would you do that? That's the first thing. The second thing. Let's say you're Barry Morphew and you're going to murder her. And you got this whole plan about you're going to murder her and dump the bike and then the helmet. What a stupid mistake to make. To dump her body somewhere not wearing her bike clothing, right? Or not even, you know, having it with her, let all this time pass, move the body and bury it, and then take the bike clothing, which, by the way, the random killer wouldn't have, take the bike clothing and bury it with her in the hopes that people would think she was wearing it when it's so easy to tell that it isn't decomposed in the same way. I mean, this fact, it may seem like a little minor fact, but it is so important here for his story. Because if she were out biking and got kidnapped and murdered, guess what? She would have been wearing her biking clothes wherever she decomposed. So even if you think, well, maybe this is a really weird killer and they just got spooked with all this activity and thought, I need to bury the body and they did go back and do it, well, she would have been wearing her biking clothes and they would have been decomposed. The fact that they don't look. They look fresh, they look fresh clothes just put in there with the bones is damning, incredibly damning for Barry Morphew, but also really stupid of him to do it.

A (23:53)

Yeah, especially because it's like so far past. I mean, DNA would have found out who the bones belong to, but the cancer port, the clothes, like, things that immediately, if you are on the lookout for Suzanne Morphew before any DNA comes back, you're like, wait a second, this is, you know, we had a bike helmet, we had a bike found. We also know that she was on cancer treatments. Like, these are just things that stand out and very much scream. Somebody knows her. So this is all incredibly sad, obviously, because now we have a body. And it is unfortunately confirmed that Suzanne has not left for a better life out west, further out west than she was already. She has been met with something horrible.

B (24:35)

So we're not really going to get into this because it's a little bit of an aside. But this whole time, Barry, after he's released from his first indictment, when that's dismissed and he's released, his daughters are with him. There's video of him arm in arm with his daughters. They completely believe in him. He leaves Colorado, he actually moves to Arizona and lives there under an alias. So he's like living the life in Arizona, apparently, like out at the bars all the time, picking up the ladies, using alias. That's what he's doing, pursuing his 15 million dollar lawsuit and probably figured, hey, they're never gonna find Suzanne, but they do. And on April 29, 2024, Suzanne's autopsy is completed and it is determined that she died of, quote, unspecified means, but her death was ruled a homicide. And this sort of goes back when we were talking about West Memphis Three and Dr. Spitzer couldn't say it was a homicide. When you had three boys who were tied up and put into a creek, that was obviously a homicide. Here. They don't know what killed her. But she didn't bury herself. Right? So whatever happened, this is clearly a homicide. Couple things about the unspecified means. So what does this tell you? Well, it tells you some things, but not really. Maybe as much as you would like. It probably tells you that she didn't die from severe blunt force trauma because you would see cracks in the skull. You would see maybe punched out areas in the skull, which we've seen before. You would definitely see fractures in the skull if she was struck on the head. Remember, that was one of the weird things about the. Going way back now, the Michael Peterson case was the prosecution had to have a very unique theory of how that murder went down because they wanted it to be a beating, but she had no fractures. And that was just so rare, like nobody could even point to an example of a beating that didn't result in fractures. So probably not that because they would see those fractures. Probably not shot, though. You can't say for certain because you could be shot and it miss every bone. Right. That could happen and then you just bleed out. But probably not. Certainly not shot in the head or anything like that. Probably not stabbed for the same reason. Usually if you're stabbed, the knife will leave marks on your bones, and they would have been looking for that wherever you're stabbed. It's just. Unless you're just stabbed in the stomach, it's probably gonna leave a mark in the bone, especially if you're stabbed more than once. Right. So probably wasn't stabbed. Was she strangled? Hard to say. I don't know if her hyoid bone was recovered. Remember, most of them were recovered. We don't know about that. Fractures in the hyoid bone can be a strong indicator of strangulation, though as you get older, it is easier to fracture your hyoid bone. So I'm sure if it were fractured, Barry would probably say, well, she was probably hit by a car and that's when that happened. So you can tell some things by not being able to see things, if that makes sense. Like the lack of evidence of a cause of death is probably pointing you in certain directions. And as you're about to see the corner is going to find something that gives them a very good idea of exactly how this happened. Guys, let's be honest, we all blame the dog. My dog makes huge messes, and I like to say he's responsible for everything. Or sometimes it's the kids, but usually it's just me not cleaning up, not having the time, not having the energy. Well, that is where the green mitt kit from Clean Safe Products comes in. It is the easiest way to keep your fabrics looking brand new in five minutes or less, which is so important to me because frankly I barely have five minutes these days. The process is simple. You simply spray the solution wipe, rinse the mittens and repeat. If you can clean a kitchen counter, you can clean your couch. It works on carpets, couches, car seats, wool rugs, delicate upholstery, even dry clean only materials.

A (28:52)

You can avoid the nightmare of bleach spots or harsh chemical sprays in your living room, which is really important for me because I have so many kids. The Green Mitt kit is non toxic fragrance free and made with just three ingredients. And because it's soap free, there's no sticky residue so stains don't magically reappear the next day. It's safe for kids, pets and every soft surface you love. It removes the spots and the stress that comes with having nice things in a messy household and it lasts forever. One bottle of concentrate makes up to 16 full size bottles of the soft surface cleaner. You can try it risk free. Clean Safe products offers a 30 day money back guarantee, no questions asked. I have a lot of kids and my couches are always seemed messy until I started using the Green Mitt kit. Even my kids love using it. That's how easy it is and they can't mess it up because it is foolproof. Go to clean safeproducts.com prosecutors now to get $15 off the green mitt kit that's clean safeproducts dot com prosecutors for $15 off the world's easiest soft surface.

B (29:57)

Cleaning solution this episode is sponsored by Better Help. Guys. We're all looking for advice. We're all looking for thoughts. We're all looking for someone to talk to. And you know, we're turning to our baristas, to our bartenders, to our hairdressers, to random strangers on the street. But that is probably not the best person to talk to when you need advice about relationships, anxiety, depression or other clinical issues. That's when you need a licensed therapist from BetterHelp. BetterHelp will connect you with quality therapists according to a strict code of conduct who are fully licensed in the us Just fill out a short questionnaire which will identify your needs and preferences and their 10 years of experience and industry leading match fulfillment will get it right the first time. And if they don't guess what, you can switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored recommendations. And that kind of flexibility is what so many people love about BetterHelp. You can pause your subscription if you need to. You can switch therapists at any time at no extra cost. And There are over 30,000 therapists serving over 5 million people globally.

A (31:18)

As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of Expertise. Find the one with better help. Our listeners get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com prosecutors that's betterhelp.com prosecutors homes.com knows when it comes to home shopping, it's never just about the house or condo. It's about the home. And what makes a home is more than just the house or property. It's the location and neighborhood. If you have kids, it's also schools, nearby, parks, and transportation options. That's why homes.com goes above and beyond to bring home shoppers the in depth information they need to find the right home.

B (32:01)

And when I say in depth, I'm talking deep. Each listing features comprehensive information about the neighborhood, complete with a video guide. They also have details about local schools with test scores, state rankings, and student to teacher ratio. They even have an agent directory with the sales history of each agent. So when it comes to finding a home, not just a house, this is everything you need to know all in1place.homes.com We've done your homework. This is both a chilling fact and a damning fact for Barry Morphew during the autopsy. And I really should have given this part to Alice, but go ahead and do it. You my best to you.

A (32:47)

You get to pronounce all of these.

B (32:50)

The coroner's office conducted additional toxicology testing at the request of law enforcement for the presence. And this was just once again, I mean, like, talk about good law enforcement. We knock law enforcement all the time for missing things, for not thinking of things. But law enforcement's thinking here. And they asked the coroner to test for a very specific chemical known as bam B A M. And that is a combination of butorphanol, aziparone and metatomidine.

A (33:25)

That was really good. I don't want to say anything so you don't have to say it again.

B (33:28)

Yeah. So they find this, which we're going to refer to as BAM from this point forward. So the chief toxicologist tests Suzanne Morphew's bone marrow because, remember, they don't have her body. They don't have her. All the places you'd expect to find chemicals, the liver, the blood, the fat, they don't have any of that. It's all gone. So the only thing they can test is her bone marrow for the presence of bam.

A (33:56)

Which, by the way, this is again, where it would be helpful to have, like, body bags on. I would think that to get to your bone marrow, I mean, blood travels to your bone marrow, but it has to be in your body for some time to still be in your bone marrow, right? Because fats soak up everything. But bone marrow, as you can tell, is, like, meant to be denser and harder. So it had to have been a lot and been in there for a while for it to be testable.

B (34:18)

We don't need Jazza Scott Morgan for this.

A (34:22)

Please come back.

B (34:23)

Listen to body bags, because Alice is 100% right. And this is one of the reasons that I find this to be chilling. And we'll go on and talk about this in a second. But Alice is right. So if, for instance, someone injected you with this substance and we'll talk about what it does and then immediately killed you, it would not be in your bone marrow. It's only in your bone marrow. If your body has some time to break it down. If it has time to pass through your body to be broken down, to be absorbed, that's the only way it would be in your bone marrow. It's going to take some time. So if they find this, it will mean that she was alive for some significant period of time after having this chemical administered to her. So they look at the bone marrow, and they find all three of the individual chemicals present, and they find a metabolite for butyraphenol also present. And so what this means is that this wasn't postmortem. Her body wasn't somehow contaminated with BAM after death. The only way you'd find it in her bone marrow and find it broken down and metabolized is if she lived for some period of time following exposure to bam. So the coroner's office determined the cause of death and manner of death as follows. Homicide by unspecified means in the setting of butorphanol, azoparone, and mitatomidine intoxication.

A (36:04)

Guys, it's about to get even more real than just that. Not only having BAM and having it metabolize, she went through something. Right? So let's go to September 10, 2024. We told you this case has a lot going on. And there's going to be more updates. You're seeing how it's coming to the present day. Now we find out more about what happened when this case was dismissed because a disciplinary board recommended that the prosecutor on the case Linda Stanley be disbarred. Remember how the defense had asked for sanctions? Asking for sanctions is just like a slap on the wrist or saying, judge, you know, say something to this attorney. For a disciplinary board to recommend disbarment of a public servant, a prosecutor is a big deal. So this is reported by the ap. The panel found that after the prosecutors were barred from violating evidence rules, remember how the judge came back and said, hey, you should have turned that over, because you didn't turn that information over. We're barring 12 of your 14 witnesses. The prosecutor, Linda Stanley, instead of doing what I would do, which is probably go into a corner and cry, she decided, I'm gonna fight back. Apparently, this panel found that Linda Stanley launched a groundless criminal investigation into the presiding judge, the judge who ruled against her in a failed attempt to try and remove the judge from the case. Bad move, guys. You got one shot to shoot. And guess what? She missed. Cometh King cometh, not miss. Learn from the wire. Right? She missed because, unsurprisingly, the probe turned up nothing. She couldn't get the judge removed from the case. And after her probe failed again, she didn't just blend quietly into the night. That is when Linda Stanley went to the court to ask that the case against Barry be dropped. That's really bad. So break it down into, like, layman's terms for you guys. The prosecution was found for violating evidence rules. Really big deal, right? Not turning over evidence of a potential match to a sexual assaulter in codis potentially. Right. We'll get more into that later. And when the judge found this and said, hey, not cool, barring your witnesses, then the prosecutor says, aha, I'm gonna bring you down, judge. Except wasn't able to bring down the judge. And when the judge could not be removed for some baseless reason, that was the only time that the prosecutor decided to dismiss the case. That is not how the judicial system is supposed to work. And in addition to that, guys, if you practice the law in general, don't go comment on, like, true crime podcast. Just don't including. Get out of the gallery. Stop commenting. Right, like, I'm gonna try to save your bar license here. Because it was found that Linda Stanley made some unethical statements about the case that she was prosecuting. You can't do that. We've always talked about it. We talk about lots of cases. We don't talk about the cases that we prosecute, including comparing Barry's case to the type of cases where people are convicted with no body. Taylor Swift. I don't think she was making a Taylor Swift reference of nobody, no crime. Or in this case, nobody still a crime. Because this comment was found in a chat forum for the Profiling Evil true crime podcast. You cannot comment on the case that you are prosecuting. Doesn't matter what you say. Just don't comment on it, and certainly don't comment on it on a true crime podcast chat forum for all to see. So because of all this, I think she was ultimately disbarred.

B (39:29)

Yep, she was. She's still fighting it. She's going through sort of the appeals process. She tried to have them sort of temporarily delay this so she could try this case, which seems unwise, but the court's like, no, we're not gonna do that. So another prosecutor is handling this. I think that's wise. I think that is exactly what this case needs, is sort of a clean start away from her, surprisingly. I know you'll be shocked by this. This was not her first complaint that she'd had about the way she handles cases. And look, let it be a lesson to all of you out there. I know there are a lot of you who listen, who practice law, or prosecutors want to be prosecutors. You have to be ethical. Your behavior has to be so much better than the defense attorneys you're dealing with. For instance, I mean, they can go on every podcast they want to. They can talk to YouTubers. As long as there's not a gag order. They can do everything they want. And you may be like, I want to go talk about how, no, there have been no body cases before that have been successful. Can't do that. You do not get to litigate your case in the public, and you certainly don't get to litigate your case in the public while not turning over relevant evidence to the defense. I mean, this is not hard. Right? And I think it's important. Just on the one hand, we always try and scare prosecutors to death. Turn everything over, turn everything over, turn everything over. But on the other hand, it's never something innocuous, right? Like, everybody makes mistakes. That happens. And a lot of these sort of true crime podcasts, innocence podcasts, you know, they'll point to every little piece of paper as if it's a. It's a Brady violation. We need new trial. That's not how it works. This is real. Like, this is the kind of thing that you're looking for when you have actual exculpatory evidence. I mean, basically, if you as a prosecutor would have to think really long and hard about how to deal with that evidence and maybe even have to call an expert to refute it. You should turn that over. It's like not. It's not difficult. And I don't know what they were doing and I don't know what they were thinking. And I think it's one thing to say, well, they were going to hide it, but they ultimately didn't. Like they did eventually turn all this stuff over. They were just so late with everything. So I don't know, it's very strange. And you know, she's probably gonna lose her career because of it. But when you become a prosecutor, that's the burden you take on. So. Okay, so that brings us to September 25, 2024. Probably not surprising given everything that's going on. The $15 million lawsuit Barry filed was dismissed by the judge. Fast forward to June 20, 2025. This year, Barry Morphew was arrested in Arizona where he was hanging out under his alias and indicted on first degree murder charges for the murder of Suzanne. This time his bond was set at $3 million. So we are now heading towards a trial. The update hearing, the sort of status conference in this case is next week as we record this. So by the time you hear this, we probably will have a trial date. So we're going to talk about sort of the prosecution theory for what happened in this case. But this is a case we will be watching and covering in real time as it continues.

A (42:49)

So let's talk about theories and a lot more is going to come out, of course, but the one that the prosecution has put forward, and we know this because it's in the indictment, is that Barry Morphew planned Suzanne's murder. This was not an accident. This was a planned homicide. And in fact, they go into detail and said that was it. The timing was also planned because remember, they had two grown daughters, but one of the daughters was living at home at the time. And when she went on a pre planned road trip May 5th through the 10th or maybe the 11th, that's when Barry took that kind of time period when she was out of the home to murder Suzanne. And unfortunately, Mother's Day fell in the midst of that. So as we know from the autopsy, her exact cause of death can't be determined. The coroner did rule her death as homicide by unspecified means in the setting of bam. Right. Brett did such a good job of pronouncing that that we don't need to revisit it. So let's just call it bam. And here is where it gets really Interesting, because we talked about, you know, this doesn't look good for Barry. But why doesn't it look good for Barry? Because the prosecution comes this time with some much stronger evidence. Barry, we know, was a deer farmer in Indiana before moving to Colorado in 2018. And during interviews, several people who knew him told law enforcement that Barry used a tranquilizer called bam. He used it to sedate the deer in his deer farming days. And so he knew how to use it in what doses, how to administer it. He was very familiar with it because of his deer farming. Barry himself even admitted to using BAM and in Colorado, not just in Indiana. So in April of 2020, one month before Suzanne's murder, he said that he had used bam. So you're looking at motive, you're looking at opportunity. He himself is putting him in the hands of opportunity, of having BAM and knowing how to use it.

B (44:43)

And here's the thing about serious tranquilizers. You can't just go buy them down at the woods in water. It's not something you just pick up at the corner store. This is the kind of thing that we keep records of. And wouldn't you know it, the prosecution got those records, and records were obtained for BAM prescriptions related to Barry Morphew. And they were also obtained for prescriptions for all the people within the counties, adjacent counties, the county where he lived, all across Colorado, essentially where Morphew lived and where Suzanne Morphew's remains were located. And wouldn't you know it, those records showed that Barry Morphew obtained and filled several prescriptions for BAM while living in Indiana. His last purchase of BAM had been in March of 2018. He obtained multiple kits that each contained multiple doses just a few months before the Morphews moved to Colorado. And records further showed that no other private citizens or private businesses in any of the surrounding counties had purchased Bam prescriptions from 2017 to 2020. He's literally the only person in that area in those three years who bought bam.

A (46:07)

We just talk about really good investigating. Note the time period and the area coverage that they're doing. I did a lot of these types of cases, prescription type cases, as a prosecutor, by the way, kind of like phone records, if you want to know, like the deep, dark secrets of, like, an area or people getting their prescription records is incredibly powerful. The fact that this is a three year span, I mean, how powerful is this? Where it's all about storytelling, but also the strength of the evidence, because I can imagine, like, okay, in this one month when she disappeared he was the only one. But I don't know. There's so many people who could have it three years because the likelihood of someone who knew her and bought the BAM before she even moved to Colorado to know to kill her, incredibly low. Right. That's why this is so powerful. It's going back to before they even moved to Colorado. So it's impossible for someone to have BAM sitting around unless they stole it, which also you'd have a record of.

B (47:00)

And it's one of those things where people always think killers are geniuses and they're often not. But you can imagine sitting around thinking this is the perfect thing to use. I hadn't bought this in three years. Haven't bought it in Colorado at all. It's a big wildlife state. Probably a ton of people have this, right? But it turned out the only people in Colorado who have it are the government agencies, essentially the National Park Service, the wildlife service, I mean, probably so when they get like a wild buffalo or something, they can tranquilize him, move him to another park. I mean, that's the only people who have this. And no private citizens do. There's no one riding down the road looking for someone to kidnap with a dart gun with Bam in it. That's just not happening. And the fact that she has that, for instance, talk about your DNA. And this is like thinking about evidence and how to weigh it. I can promise you the DNA evidence on her helmet, on the bike and in the car is not going to end up mattering. It's not going to end up mattering. It's going to be debunked. They're going to figure out why it's weak. And the reason I know that is because that guy didn't have bam. It didn't happen. Like he's not carrying around Bam to use in his assaults. So I know how that evidence is going to go in the end and we'll see what happens at trial. But I feel pretty confident that it's not going to turn out that Suzanne is the latest in a serial killer slash rapist victims. Right. That's not what's going to end up happening in this case.

A (48:30)

So now things are not looking good for Barry. We know that he's the only person in a three year span in this whole area other than the government who has bam. What is known to have been part of the death of Suzanne Morphew. Then as good investigators do, they look at Barry's phone and they do a full download and a forensic analysis of his cell phone. And it shows that Barry had deleted a text chain with Suzanne Morphew. We know this, remember, from the timeline from which an image of one single text remained. That screenshot was saved on Barry's phone on May 6, 2020. And we know that image revealed a text from Suzanne where she said, I'm done. I could care less what you're up to and have been for years. We just need to figure this out civilly. So this is evidence to suggest that Barry knew or at least suspected that Suzanne was having an affair, and this could have been the motive behind him murdering his wife of 26 years.

B (49:25)

You know, if there had just been a text chain, that would be bad for him, obviously, because points to a motive. But if he just had a text chain, that'd be one thing. If it was a deleted text chain, that'd be another thing. The fact that he deleted the text chain, but not before taking a screenshot of this, the most damning text. I mean, it just all starts to fall into place in your mind. You know, we talk about sometimes when you're building a case and what is reasonable doubt and all the different metaphors people use. Imagine you're putting a puzzle together, and all the pieces, you don't know what it is. It's like you don't have the box. All you have are the pieces. And you're putting the pieces together, and at some point, a piece falls into place, and you're like, oh, Notre Dame, right? And you don't have all the pieces. They're not all filled in yet, but you don't need them. You now know beyond a doubt what you're looking at. Or the one I always like is Wheel of Fortune. The letters are turning. There's a point, and it's different for everybody. Just like for every juror, there's a point where a letter turns and boom, you've got it. You know exactly what it says. And for me, you see this piece where he has this one text that he decided to screenshot days before she disappeared. I mean, forget all the other stuff that we talked about yesterday. Combine that with bam. I mean, I think I can solve the puzzle in this. In this case.

A (50:55)

Delete me. Makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Guys, as someone with an active online presence, we are always online, posting, talking. People see our faces, hear our voices. And it's a little bit scary because there are people out there who want to harm us. And Privacy really is very important to me. I have small children. I don't want all my information out there. Enter Delete Me. It's easier than ever before to find personal information about people online. Well, don't worry about it because Delete Me can go online and make sure that your address and your phone number and your family's members names hanging out on the Internet can actually be taken down. They can protect your personal privacy or the privacy of your business from doxing attacks before sensitive information can be exploited. We've both been doxxed before online, but not anymore. With Delete Me. The New York Times Wirecutter has named Delete Me top pick for data removal services.

B (51:56)

Yeah, guys, and if you've been a victim of identity theft or harassment or doxxing, you know this is a problem in the modern world. It's just the way it is. And honestly, if you haven't been a victim of it, you probably know someone who has. Delete Me can help take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your delete Me plan when you go to join DeleteMe. Prosecutors and use promo code prosecutors at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com prosecutors and enter code prosecutors at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com prosecutors code prosecutors. Guys, if you know anything about us, you know we have a lot of of kids and we want them to stay healthy. We want them to grow big and strong so we want them to get the vitamins they need. The problem is typical, children's vitamins are basically candy in disguise. Gummy junk. Growing kids should never eat with two teaspoons of sugar and all sorts of unhealthy chemicals. That is where Haya comes in. It is the pediatrician approved super powered chewable vitamin. This is not something filled with sugar. Instead, it fills the most common gaps in modern children's diets. We are talking a blend of 12 organic fruits and veggies supercharged with 15 essential vitamins and minerals including vitamin D, B, 12C, zinc, folate and many others to help support immunity, energy, brain function, mood, concentration, teeth, bones and more.

A (53:45)

Each of my kids have their own personalized jar of Haya vitamins. It comes beautifully packaged, it's glass and it comes with all these fun stickers. So each of my kids have used the stickers to personalize it. And really it's my 2 year old who Reminds me every single day. Don't forget the Haya. And they love it. It's like a treat. But really I know that it's not a treat. In fact, it is making sure they get all the minerals and vitamins they need. I also recommend checking out their new kids probiot and Nighttime Essentials. We've worked out a special deal with Haya for their best selling children's vitamin. Receive 50% off. Your first order to claim this deal you must go to hiahealth.com prosecute this deal is not available on their regular website. Go to h I-Y-A h e a l t h.com prosecute and get your kids the full body nourishment they need to grow into healthy adults. By the way, this is not following your train of thought. That was a fantastic way to explain it because especially in the Karen Reed case, when we talked about jury verdicts and how people really don't understand reasonable doubt, we should start explaining it that way. Maybe some lawyers already do. But the fact that Wheel of Fortune exists, the whole point of the show is to guess it before you get every letter. People who say, I don't have enough information because there's a possibility out there is essentially saying you're not allowed to guess what the phrase is unless every single word is not only filled out, but someone pronounces it out to you to say. It says she is guilty and they have to underline it for you. That's what I think a lot of people think beyond a reasonable doubt is. But you're right. The whole concept of the show is to guess it when you have most of the pieces in place and you're able to see it clearly and there's nothing else it could be.

B (55:33)

So sorry, I use that in my last closing argument. I'm gonna continue to use it.

A (55:37)

You should continue. I really, it really worked because a lot of people, I mean, everybody knows, like, that's the whole concept of the show. What if you were barred from guessing?

B (55:44)

Juror is like nodding along. It's like, so I'm just gonna start using that until I run into like some millennials or zennials and they're like, what is that?

A (55:52)

What's that?

B (55:55)

But yeah, so that's where we are in this case. Obviously, we got a long way to go. There probably will be a trial. This feels.

A (56:04)

Let me say this about Linda Stanley. Linda Stanley, who's been disbarred. Clearly, there was incredible evidence in this case. Now, at the time, she was investigating the Case there wasn't the body. That is true. But you see how shortcuts, Dishonesty never wins the case. There is such good evidence. If you put your head down and investigate. This case came together. Now, as we saw in the West Memphis three case, if there's not great investigation, you can't make up evidence that's not there. The investigators in this case really did an incredible job. And so much of the strength of the case is from the investigation. If she didn't spend her time, I don't know, trying to get a judge removed baselessly, not only would she still have her career and not be fighting, you know, this disbarment, she could have incredible case built and justice for the victim here. So this is like, justice in the sense of like what Martin Luther King says is true here. So thank goodness the prosecution came back. The one thing that she did good, she dismissed it without prejudice so that there can still be justice for Suzanne.

B (57:03)

And look, you know, that's such a great point. And in fact, usually those kind of shortcuts, all they can do is hurt. Barry Morphew's best chance here is to argue some sort of railroad. He was being railroaded. You know, the prosecutor had out for him. She went so far, she got disbarred. Now, look, a lot of this is gonna be really hard to get this in front of a jury, but we've seen it before, right? And so how can you trust the bam? They'd lie about that. They'd get somebody just to. Did you see it there? I mean, did you test it? Are you an expert? How do you know it's really in her bones, right? I mean, like, that sort of thing is his best bet, I think, at this point. And we'll see. I mean, I feel like number one, I'm pretty sure Colorado doesn't have the death penalty, so he's really got nothing to lose from rolling the dice. He's not the kind of person who I think would plead guilty to unburden himself to take responsibility for what he did. I don't think that's going to happen with Barry.

A (58:02)

The one thing I could see is, as you guys can tell, we still. There's a lot of unanswered questions because he may have not been there. He could have been there. How did it happen? Was she biking? How did he learn? Like, there's. There is a story there because obviously things were not good between them, but. Well, she did keep a list of him being abusive, like, what actually went down. So the one Thing I could see is if this goes further in the case, much more information will come out. And up until this point, he's been like, an upstanding member of. You know, he was an athlete. He owns his own business. He has two grown daughters. That's the part where I think potentially he may just shut it all down the way Bryan Kohberger did and just say, guilty. Whatever. I'm out of here. Because what may come out about him, I think is going to demolish every image that anyone has ever had of him, including his daughters.

B (58:52)

Yeah, his daughters are a wild card, because if they believe him, then maybe he says, I gotta fight it, because if I admit it, I'll lose my daughters. And if I don't, maybe they'll always believe in me. I mean, it's hard to say. Right. Exactly what he's gonna do. But you're right. There's enough of the story we don't know, and there's enough sort of possibilities out there. I mean, it is a. I'm not gonna say this is a messy case, but it's a little bit more interesting than your standard husband kills wife story. I mean, you've got a lot of different things going on here, so.

A (59:23)

I mean, he moved the body.

B (59:25)

Yeah, exactly.

A (59:26)

Why? Why did he move the body? Because clearly it wasn't found where it was. Unless they were honing in there. But then why did he have to move it? Because if it was planned, you would think he would plan ahead to have the body in a place. That way he didn't have to move it later and be discovered. And then why only have it shallowly buried? Why off the side of the road? Why not into the woods, never be found? Right. We've talked about missing person cases. So many question marks. Like something happened, I think, that spooked him, that caused it, or he wanted to be found. People do weird things, and I'm a.

B (59:55)

Little unclear how they found it. Look, there's a lot of questions I have that. A trial answer, like how exactly did they end up finding it? And you're right. What was it? Because it seems like he didn't. Or whoever did this didn't bury her initially. Right. So was the plan to somehow make it look like she'd had a biking accident and stumbled off into the wilderness and died, and then they just never found her body? And he kept waiting for them to find her body, and they never did. They never did. And the heat got so bad that finally he was like, I've got to bury her. It's better if they never find it. But also, if you're gonna bury her, why do you add the bike clothes?

A (60:36)

Why do you add the bike clothes? That's why I'm like, was he looking for a payout from insurance and so the body needed to be found? I don't. These are questions that I could see that being a motivator where he's been trying for, like, three, four years to get a payout. And they're like, no body, no payout. And he's like, oh, look at that. The body, bike, clothes. Clearly she was abducted. Or maybe one of the daughters was like, I just wish we could give mom a burial. I don't know. I mean, this is just. This is correct, by the way, that there's so much we don't know. I'm not frustrated we don't know these things. This is an ongoing case, and all I care about is that the right person is convicted of Suzanne's murder. So just so you know, these questions should be question marks at this point, but if we move forward with the case, we will know much more. And it's because of all these question marks that could point to really what a horrible, horrible person he is that might tilt him in favor of not moving forward with the case and pleading guilty because of the strength of the evidence. And he really did do it.

B (61:31)

Well, look, we'll see what happens. As I said, there's going to be an update before this episode even comes out. So we probably will learn a lot then. I imagine if this trial happens, it'll probably happen maybe the beginning of next year, so look out for that. But we'll try and cover it on legal briefs if you're interested in that. And this is one a lot of you have wanted us to cover, so I'm glad we're able to do so. But that also just reminds you that if you have cases you're really interested in, let us know about it. Shoot us an email. Email is the best way to recommend a case. Sometimes I'll find, like, messages from people on Twitter that went into the junk file, want to discover case. It's like, man, I wish you'd let us know about this earlier. But anyways, shoot us an email. That's the best way to do it. Prosecutors, podmail.com, if you do want to follow us on social media, it's at Prosecutors, Pod on all the x, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok threads, if that's even still a thing. We're all over the place. So follow us on any of Those locations go to the gallery and join our sort of fan led face grip page. I'm sure they'll be talking about this case and many others. If you want to see us record these live. It's only $3 a month on Patreon, if that is the last thing you want to do. But you do hate ads. You can also get the episodes early and ad free on Patreon for as little as $3 a month. All right, Alice, do you want to answer a question?

A (63:01)

Let's do questions.

B (63:02)

Okay, let's do a question. Okay. You know, by the time this episode comes out, there will only be one more week left in the month of September.

A (63:12)

What does that mean, Brett?

B (63:13)

That means that October is coming. I know you're all very excited. I'm. I'm excited. So a good slate of cases for you this year. Only got four weeks this time, so only four of them.

A (63:27)

But my one win of the year.

B (63:31)

That hurts me. That hurts.

A (63:32)

Hey, at least I do four with you.

B (63:34)

It's round horse. Okay, let's see. So many of them are about how you, like, manage life. I'm going to ask you this.

A (63:43)

Let's talk about managed life.

B (63:44)

Yeah, we can talk about it.

A (63:45)

I don't know how to manage life.

B (63:46)

So this is from Caitlin, and Caitlin says, I'm a woman currently studying for the LSAT and soon to be married. I definitely want to be an attorney, but I also want to have a family. So my question for Alice is, how do you handle having a career and having children? Do you have any advice for young women who are going to take a similar path as you?

A (64:03)

I literally had a conversation with someone today at a bridal shower about it, because the young, beautiful bride to be wants to be a lawyer and also is about to, like, enter the family stage of her life as well. So what I told her today was that we can be many things to many people at many different periods of our lives, and to try and fit everything into these neat boxes and at one stationary point in life is an impossible task. So if you're at the precipice of your family and your career and you're like, my goodness, I'm looking at Mount Everest. How am I going to fit in? Having children, having a spouse, and having an amazing career, it's impossible when you look at it like that. Instead, if you work hard in what you have and are diligent in how you make your choices, just say yes to the things that are right in front of you if they're the right choice. So when you say yes at different points in your life and that you've worked hard and those doors open, just walk through one door at a time. And you don't have to have all of those things all at once, right? You don't have to be a lawyer and be a mom and, you know, be a spouse all at one time. They will probably happen if that is like, what you are seeking eventually when you look back on your career and your home life, but to kind of force fit them, and they're not going to fit perfectly into a puzzle piece. So I would just say, like, don't put off becoming a lawyer, don't put off being a mom if those are things that you want to do. But know that if you take one step forward at a time, like when you look back, that's when you see it's really easy to look at my life now and be like, well, you have so many kids and so many podcasts, too many podcasts. And, you know, in a career, it didn't happen overnight. It took 15 years. And so I didn't have to carry that Entire load all 15 years. Each day had its own load. And that day I dealt with that day's load. And the other thing is you have to have supportive people around you. So if you have people who are not supportive and then key person is going to be your significant other, if they're not supportive, you have to really decide if that person is worth keeping around. I'm not advocating divorce at all, but I'm saying it will affect everything. So if you have people around you saying, you can't do this, you can't do this, you can't do that, it's too much, it's too much, it's too much. That scarcity mindset will leave you with a scarce life. But if you have an abundance mindset, you'll have an abundant life. Like, there is so much more you're capable of than you're even aware of. And so part of the difficulty is making sure that your own and those around you limitations on your life are real or if they're merely perceived. Because whether they're real or perceived have basically the same effect on your life. You tell someone every single day they're bad at math, they're gonna be bad at math, even if they actually have the ability. So think about what you're telling yourself in your head and think about who you're surrounding yourself with and open up your mind to the possibility that you can actually do a lot more than you're even aware of doesn't mean you have to do it all. And you don't have to do it all at one point in time. Think of your life and your career as long and something you can have, you know, a journey on rather than today. I have to have all 10 things in my life checked off. Don't do that. That's way too much pressure. And it's not enjoyable either.

B (67:27)

Yeah, that was brilliant, as always. The only thing I'll add is the last point you made. I think marriage should be a partnership in so many ways, and you have to help each other. And I will say this to the men out there, the women in your lives, if you're married, if you have kids, if they have jobs, they're already taking on more responsibility than you are with the kids. They just are. Like, somebody's gonna send me an angry email. Feel free. But the fact of the matter is that women just typically are doing things with the kids that you don't even know about. They're taking care of things you don't even know about. You know, the school has school dress up day on Thursday, and they have to dress like their favorite Lego character. And you don't know anything about that. And your wife, in addition to everything else she's doing is getting the Lego outfit together. Right. Just remember that, you know, if you need to be supportive of your wife and everything she does and make it possible, make it possible for both of you to live the abundant lives you want to live. I think Alice is absolutely right. Always work for yes. Always try and make yes happen. Like, there are going to be times where things are not going to work out the way you want them to, but those should be things that you sort of come through together. Like, if you can make it happen, make it happen. And we have been so fortunate with our spouses, both in our careers and in this podcast, that they have been willing to make sacrifices that allow us to do things. Like, we get a call from Hulu that says, hey, can you be? And wherever we went tomorrow, I mean, that's not easy.

A (69:03)

That literally happened.

B (69:04)

It literally happened. And we were.

A (69:06)

The difference was like, you know, in our group chat with us and our spouses, because we chat literally on like an hourly basis. The response could have been from our spouses when we texted that, what? Like, I have to pick up the kids again. Like, you guys are, like, crazy. You recorded until midnight last night and you, like, have a brief due today, and then now you're gonna go do this, which is gonna Be more work on me. That could have been a completely rational response. Instead, the response was no way. That's amazing. From both of our spouses. Every single time we have a harebrained idea like that. So first of all, it's possible to find someone like that. The fact that both of us found someone like that, we may not be the easiest people to live with, but we both found partners in crime, true crime, who do that for us. It's absolutely possible. And I think but for that, we wouldn't have all these podcasts, you know, and that's like, goes with the abundant mindset. And we do it for our spouses too. It's a two way street, ladies. You know, you got to do that as well. Don't ever keep track in your, like, relationship with respect to, like, your careers and family. Don't do tit for tat for everything. It will be exhausting and you'll just resent each other. That whole abundance mindset comes to everything comes to the way you are at home, the way you are at work. That's the way I treat my co workers. I never am like, I just helped you last time. I work with people. I have worked with people who do that. They don't want to give me the time of day because it's like, not their problem. I don't act like that, even though it doesn't necessarily help me in that particular case. But I don't care because this is the way I want to live and it pays dividends.

B (70:43)

And that's a good point. I mean, look out for each other in your jobs and your careers and your friendships, because not everybody has somebody at home, number one. But not everybody has somebody at home who's helpful. And there may be times where you can help somebody that you're friends with, that you care about to accomplish things that they would not be able to do by themselves. So, as we often say, just look out for each other out there. I mean, do what you can to try and make people's lives a little bit easier. And I think you'll feel better in your life and we can all accomplish more, make the world a better place. So that's our optimistic. We're being optimistic at the end of a podcast. Imagine that. Imagine from us. Okay, well, I'm not gonna ask if you have anything else to say, Alice, because that was such a brilliant way to end it. So I'm just going to cut you off and say that. We'll be back next week with a new case to wrap up September I've got one in mind that we can do in one week in September, so that we can begin October. So all of you who left because of West Memphis 3 Hope you enjoyed September, because you're probably gonna leave again in October, but that's fine. Even though it's all true crime, nevertheless, I get it. So we'll be back next week with that case. But until then, I'm Brett.

A (71:54)

And I'm Alice.

B (71:55)

We are the prosecutor.

A (72:17)

Mind changes. Like. Okay, I have a question. When we were waiting to see if we were gonna do another episode, I ran, you know, to go grab something, and I grabbed a handful of grapes. I love grapes. They're very sweet right now. And I popped them in my mouth every single time I eat grapes. Mr. Alice says, without fail, don't swallow nature's candy. Is that a thing? Is that an ad?

B (72:40)

Yeah, that was an ad campaign.

A (72:42)

Was that an ad? Because he. I don't remember this. It was, like, a different part. Maybe it wasn't where I grew up.

B (72:46)

That was in Alabama.

A (72:48)

Like, 100% of the time, I will eat grapes maybe five times a day. And five times a day, he'll be like, matrix here.

B (73:52)

I love that he makes the same joke every time, but, like, every time.

A (73:55)

And I'm like, finally one time, I was like, what are you talking about? And he's like, you know, nature's candy. I'm like, no, I don't know what you're talking about.

B (74:04)

Okay. So not to interrupt Alice's wonderful story.

A (74:07)

But I wanted to see who else knew about nature's candy.

B (74:09)

We were supposed to have.

A (74:17)

Sam.

B (74:54)

This September. CBS hits are streaming free on Pluto tv.

A (74:58)

I'm coming in hot.

B (74:59)

For this month only, you can watch full seasons of the CBS shows you love, from the courtroom drama of Madlock to the heroics of Fire Country. Go back to where it all began in NCIS origins. Or watch the hilarious hauntings of ghosts, all for free. Full seasons of the CBS shows you love this month only on Pluto tv. Stream now. Pay never.