Statement Analysis: Morphew Arrest Affidavit by Paul Maillardet

Statement Analysis:

Excerpt from Barry Morphew’s Arrest Affidavit

For the alleged murder of his wife Suzanne Morphew

 

Suzanne Morphew, 49, disappeared without trace on Mother’s Day, Sunday May 10^th 2020. 

 

Her husband, Barry Lee Morphew, was arrested and charged with her murder on 5^th of May 2021, almost a year afterwards. Suzanne’s body has not been found, and the evidence submitted is therefore circumstantial. 

 

Morphew was held in custody until being released on 20^th September 2021 on a $500,000 cash bond until his trial, set to begin on 3^rd May 2022. The arrest affidavit was released on the same day as Barry Morphew was released.

 

What follows a short analysis of an excerpt from Page 82 of 131 selected from the wider analysis of the document.

 

The analysis will be centred specifically on the exchange between Morphew and his interviewers detailed below. It will not make reference any supporting evidence that has been presented within the affidavit, nor speculation around that information. 

 

The focus therefore is purely on any linguistic evidence that may reveal itself using statement analysis.

 

As always, the presumption is that the subject is innocent, only their words can talk them out of that position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interview Excerpt

 

Special Agent Grusing: Barry said that he did not want to fight with Suzanne because of her cancer. He added, “The next night it would be like nothing ever happened. And she’d be wonderful, she’d make love”.

 

Barry added, “We had a great night that Saturday before. We made love that night. There, there was nothing that happened at 2:30. I mean, I looked back. Nothing. We grilled, I grilled steak at probably five, six. We ate dinner. Went to bed. We made love.

 

He added, “I always fall asleep right away because I’m dead tired from, from work. Surely, she stayed up, but I don’t know (shaking his head). I don’t know if she stayed up or went somewhere, and texted, or did something.” SA Grusing asked where they had sex and Barry answered, “In the bed, in the master bedroom.”

 

 

Analysis

 

Special Agent Grusing: Barry said that he did not want to fight with Suzanne because of her cancer.

 

Morphew begins by saying that in general he did not want to fight with Suzanne and attributes this to her having cancer. 

 

Within the affidavit as a whole the questions by the investigators are explained, so it is not possible to exclude that Morphew may parrot or use certain language introduced by the interviewer. The quotes from Morphew are from the recorded interviews throughout the document.

 

With that said, the shortest answer is often the best, ie. ‘I did not want to fight with Suzanne’, would have been sufficient. By reportedly adding ‘because of her cancer’, he wishes to project that he is a good, considerate person. More importantly, he wishes to convey on that day he was exactly that character. If there was an altercation, contrary to what he is telling us, he is saying it could not have been his fault as he did not want to fight. This may well speak to personality, potentially someone who wishes to shift the blame, or refuses to accept it.

 

We are told he did not want to fight. If relayed by the investigator here, Morphew doesn’t use a contraction, ie. ‘didn’t’ but instead could have used ‘did not’. It is not possible without access to the recorded answer to know this, but if ‘did not’ was actually used then lack of contraction can signal a need to make a point.

 

Morphew does not say he didn’t fight. ‘Did not’ was his intention. He does not say they did not have a fight before or on the day in question after which Suzanne was not heard from again. This would not make Morphew a killer, but it opens the possibility there were marital issues and there were arguments.

 

He added, “The next night it would be like nothing ever happened. And she’d be wonderful, she’d make love”.

 

Morphew provides context of their more recent relationship, saying the following day things would be fine again. Interestingly, he signals the onus was on Suzanne and not on him – ‘she’d be wonderful’, ‘she’d make love’. He also associates her mood by her giving him sex, and attributing the act to her, not both of them by using the pronoun ‘we’. 

 

(The interview/affidavit shifts to the day in question prior to Suzanne’s disappearance)

 

Barry added, “We had a great night that Saturday before. We made love that night…

 

Here, Morphew uses the ‘we’ to convey unity on the Saturday. However, he breaks the rule of economy by his need to separate into two sentences what he could have said in one, and this suggests he has a need to emphasise that unity and togetherness. 

 

He tells us they had a ‘great night that Saturday before.’ If Morphew was not responsible for Suzanne’s disappearance then there is the consideration he may be looking back with fondness with the great night and making love, but the need to emphasise is unexpected. 

 

If Morphew has had involvement, then the need to persuade it was a great night introduces the ‘normal factor’, that it was a normal day like any other, arguably here even better than normal. This can be found in deceptive statements, and here it is noted and set aside to look for other possible indicators, if present. 

 

Morphew continues to say that Saturday ‘before’, but he does not say ‘before’ what? If a subject had guilty knowledge of something they may not finish a sentence, which serves the purpose of distancing themselves psychologically from that event, and also leaves the interviewer, listener or reader to fill in the blanks. In this case, if Morphew has involvement that then omission could be all the more poignant, in that with no body there is no definitive cause. With no cause, there would be no specific event to relay as here, but he says nothing, not even ‘before she disappeared’.

 

Morphew repeats in two sentences ‘that’ Saturday and ‘that’ night. If Suzanne went missing on her bike on Sunday, he does not reference it, but instead distances himself by the use of ‘that’ (distant - as opposed to ‘this’ - close). Its repetition opens-up the possibility that it was this day that he is more psychologically present in linguistically, rather than what the day of Suzanne’s alleged disappearance, a day he does not take us to here.

 

“There, there was nothing that happened at 2:30”

 

Again, we can’t say this was not part of the interviewer’s question relating to the time he provided here. However, if this time was offered freely as appears to be the case, this time is extremely significant to him, and to us, especially when combined to his stuttering over ‘there’ which signals this is even more sensitive to him.

 

Even if asked about this specific time, Morphew tells us what didn’t happen, rather than what did at 2:30. When a subject says what didn’t happen in an account, it is sensitive and it is significant. Combined with potentially this being offered with the timeframe is a significant flag.

 

2:30 is highly likely to be the timeframe for the fight.

 

“I mean, I looked back. Nothing.”

 

Morphew then has a need to persuade nothing happened when it is unnecessary. ‘Looked’ rather than ‘thought’ back is more sensory and potentially places the individually more strongly at that point.

 

“We grilled, I grilled steak at probably five, six.”

 

Morphew moves his account quickly two and a half to three and a half hours. This is missing time from when ‘nothing happened’. This whole time period, and time itself, is very important to Morphew.

 

He changes his account from ‘we’ to ‘I’ – pronouns are instinctive, and where there is omission or confusion this part of his account should be questioned.

 

Although emphatic nothing happened at 2:30, after a period he doesn’t account for, he provides a vague time of ‘five, six’. Dinner time is not something that is set or remembered, but for someone who had accurate recall earlier, and for whom this was by his account the final meal with his wife, this experience could arguably be one that should be engrained in his mind.

 

If steak was grilled, or if this is not what happened, Morphew’s use of the word ‘grilled’ is something that could leak through in his language, especially in context of that day. In the context of an argument, and his change to the singular ‘I grilled’, consider that there may have been a heated argument between them, and that Morphew was grilling his wife about something, something he needed to know, something she may have been keeping from him, or told him that day that he wanted to know everything about. He was not asking; it was not a conversation. The ‘we’ becomes an ‘I’ and could suggest Morphew was demanding answers. If so, this was likely a flashpoint that day.

 

“We ate dinner. Went to bed. We made love.”

 

Here there is an extreme need to persuade there was a ‘we’ over dinner, bed and making love. He could have said ‘We ate dinner, went to bed and made love’. By breaking the rule of economy, he demonstrates further need to persuade this happened and there was unity. 

 

Where unity is missing is with his omission of ‘we’ in relation to ‘went to bed’. By his account we can’t say they went to bed, or went bed to make love.

 

More importantly, he does not say they went to sleep. Going to bed does not mean either or both went to sleep.

 

He added, “I always fall asleep right away because I’m dead tired from, from work. Surely, she stayed up, but I don’t know (shaking his head). I don’t know if she stayed up or went somewhere, and texted, or did something.”

 

Morphew states that he ‘always’ falls asleep right away. He does not say if his did that night. This is something that can be found in the accounts of deceptive people. If he doesn’t tell us what he actually did that night, it must be considered he did not, and should be questioned. 

 

He then uses an unfortunately turn of phrase ‘dead’ tired which, whilst in context, does not sit well in correlation with a potential altercation and his wife’s disappearance. 

 

The use of the word ‘Surely’ is often used to convince; however, the opposite is often the case. Here he contradicts himself with the word ‘but’, “but I don’t know” and goes on to tell us what he didn’t know what she may have done. He floats the possibility that Suzanne may have not been with him when he went to sleep. This passage is very unlikely to be a truthful account.

 

It is, however, interesting to note that amongst saying Suzanne may have stayed up or went somewhere he randomly mentions ‘and texted’. Of all the things she could have done, going downstairs for a drink, watching tv etc., he chooses ‘and texted’.

 

Consider that her texting and her mobile may be very significant to that day and/or evening.

 

SA Grusing asked where they had sex and Barry answered, “In the bed, in the master bedroom.”

 

The expected response here would be ‘in our bedroom’ or ‘our room’. Unexpectedly here, Morphew distances himself by using ‘the’ bed – this could be psychological distancing from ‘the’ bed and ‘the’ room if something happened there. It also points to distancing in their relationship on that point or that day that, even now, he is unable to separate himself from. This would have been the last day they were together.

 

He also feels the need to say where the bed is “in the master bedroom”. The additional information is unnecessary and therefore valuable.  Location here is sensitive to him. This bed, or a bed, is also sensitive to him.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject is deceptive here.

The time period around 2:30 on the Saturday is likely when an altercation started.

The subject skips over time from that period.

He does not say she went to bed. 

He does not say he went to bed.

His mentioning of texting, and therefore her mobile is sensitive to him, and is likely significant to that day.