Spy Pen Helped Uncover Suzanne Morphew’s Apparent Love Affair – CBS Denver

CHAFFEE COUNTY, Colo. (CBS4) – Throughout a preliminary listening to for the homicide case in opposition to Barry Morphew, an FBI agent testified saying a spy pen unveiled Suzanne Morphew‘s obvious love affair. Suzanne disappeared on Mom’s Day in 2020, and her physique has but to be discovered.

(credit score: Morphew household)

Barry is charged with first-degree homicide, tampering with a corpse, possession of a lethal weapon and trying to affect a public servant. With proof within the case sealed, the preliminary hearing is the public’s first look on the prosecution’s case in opposition to Barry.

READ MORE: Some UCHealth Employees Protest Being Required To Get COVID Vaccine

A lead investigator mentioned Suzanne had been having the affair for about two years. Suzanne purchased the spy pen to see if Barry was having an affair, however by accident recorded a dialog between her and Jeff Libler, the person she had been seeing.

Investigators say she tried to delete it, however they have been capable of retrieve.

Suzanne reportedly advised Libler she cherished him, and he isn’t a homewrecker. The 2 made plans for Valentine’s Day as a result of Barry can be gone.

READ MORE: Inmate Dead After 15-Second Assault At State Penitentiary

CBS4’s Jamie Leary stories Libler deleted his work telephone and all secret social media accounts after she disappeared as a result of he didn’t need it to be her legacy.

Speaking about spy pen #SuzanneMorphew bought to see if #BarryMorphew was having an affair. No affair has been confirmed however FBI agent says they probably by no means would’ve discovered her affair if not for the pen-she by accident recorded a convo w/ the person she was concerned with @CBSDenver

— Jamie Leary (@JamieALeary) August 9, 2021

MORE NEWS: Barry Morphew In Court: Investigator Says Suzanne Morphew Was Having Affair When She Disappeared

On the finish of the multi-day preliminary listening to, the decide will determine whether or not there’s sufficient proof to proceed with a trial.