Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #84

[elliefant]

O/T but related to google maps ability to secret a home from the public.
How does one go about having their residence blurred on Google Maps? TIA

A potential POI in a TX murder case has his residence blurred on Google maps. It was so unsettling that I drove hundreds of miles to the neighborhood in order to take photos of the home. We wanted to know if there was a way he could easily access the Creek than ran behind the home.

It’s very easy

Go into street view and stand in front of your house looking directly at it.
Click on 3 dots top R.
Select Report a Problem.
Red square appears around house - adjust the square to encompass all that you want blurred.
Select reason for blurring request “my home”
Enter email address & captcha thingy
Press submit

I needed to do one and it was done in less than 24 hours

ps I am not a PoI in a crime

 

[Bluebythec]

In the Courts defense, they didn't expect him to move back to Maysville where he already isn't supposed to be.

I always thought that it was part of being bonded out that you had to show the court where you were going to live etc and the court had to approve it?

 

[HongKongPhooey]

I

It is an interesting position to take. Why is it important for him to be in Chaffee County if gps works in some other location? It literally would fix both issues prosecution has…being liable to bump into locals who might be witnesses and it solves the gps conundrum. I guess for me it isn’t important where he lives as long as he shows up for any legal or court appointments as required.

If I remember, the judge specifically said he wanted Barry close by so he could keep an eye on him. Something along those lines anyway. Quite an extraordinary thing to say I thought, and revealing - trust isnt there.

JMO

 

[sk716]

I always thought that it was part of being bonded out that you had to show the court where you were going to live etc and the court had to approve it?

Everybody seems to have failed when it comes to Barry being bonded out.

 

[Scootie98]

There is generally an implied license for people to go to the front door of a property IMO. It can be revoked (though not easily), and the purpose of the person entering the property matters. For example, do people also think the FedEx driver should be arrested for trespassing? He went up the same driveway as SD and past the same 'No Trespassing' sign.

Here's a Colorado Supreme Court case discussing the issue:

We first address Neckel’s claim that his “No Trespassing” signage closed his property to legal visitation absent an express invitation. Courts have universally acknowledged, based on “the habits of the country,” McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127, 136 (1922), an “implicit license [that] typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8 (2013).And most jurisdictions —although not all —have held that revocation of this implied license, while possible, requires more than one or two out-of-the-way “No Trespassing” signs. See State v. Christensen, 517 S.W.3d 60, 72 (Tenn. 2017) (acknowledging split of authority). Courts adopting the majority view have consistently acknowledged the importance of context, concluding that“No Trespassing” signs may mean different things to different people depending on where and how they are posted. As the Idaho Court of Appeals has put it, [while] [p]osting “No Trespassing” signs may indicate a desire to restrict unwanted visitors and announce one’s expectations of privacy[,] ...such signs cannot reasonably be interpreted to exclude normal, legitimate inquiries or visits by mail carriers, newspaper deliverers, census takers, neighbors, friends, utility workers and others who restrict their movements to the areas of one’s property normally used to approach the home. State v. Rigoulot, 846 P.2d 918, 923 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). On rural property in particular, signs like Neckel’s are likely to be construed by a casual visitor not as a bar to any entry whatsoever, but rather as a deterrent to those “who might be tempted to leave the highway and use the [owner’s] driveway as an access route for their own purposes (e.g., hunting, camping, hiking, or the like).” Michel v. State, 961 P.2d 436, 438 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998).Because they are not talismans, “No Trespassing” signs are “not alone sufficient to convey to an objective officer, or member of the public, that he cannot go to the front door and knock.” United States v. Carloss, 818 F.3d 988, 995 (10th Cir. 2016). ¶ 21 We agree with those courts that hold that a sign alone does not provide the “clear demonstration[]” necessary to revoke “[t]he implicit license enjoyed by law enforcement and citizens alike to approach the front doors of homes.” State v. Grice, 767 S.E.2d312, 319 (N.C.2015). More is needed to convey to the public that the owner wants to maintain complete privacy. But Neckel employs no such measures on his property. While a fence line separates his land from at least one neighbor, there is no fence along the road, and no gates or other barriers block either end of the driveway. Nor are the two “No Trespassing” signs prominently placed. In fact, a visitor entering the northern driveway entrance would not see any sign at all before reaching the house. Given these facts, we cannot agree with Neckel’s assertion that the victim and the prosecutor misstated the law by denying that the victim was trespassing from the moment that he drove onto the property.
​

In SD's case, I think she is probably still guilty of trespassing because she didn't ring the doorbell and her purpose (taking a package from the porch) probably doesn't fall under the category of 'normal, legitimate inquiries or visits.' But it is an interesting legal question.

I would think that couriers enjoy some legal protections for implied consent...when the address on the parcel matches the physical address. jmo.

 

[Scootie98]

I’m having trouble understanding what the specific purpose of the ankle monitor is. Is it only to make sure Barry doesn’t run? There are orders of protection involving local residents, but it appears that the unit isn’t tracking Barry’s movements, even if it were working. Is the court relying on the residents to notify them that Barry’s been a bad boy, rather than keep track of him ahead of time? I would understand Barry being under house arrest with an ankle monitor, with specific times/dates/places that he is permitted to leave for-like attorney visits, jobs, doctors etc. I thought the monitor was to keep the public safe while allowing Barry out until trial. The public’s safety does not seem to be in the interests of the Judge here. People like the Ritters know that at this time, Barry can go wherever he wants, and no one would be aware. So what’s the point of an ankle monitor? He cannot be the first defendant in Colorado who lived in an area with a weak signal.

I can see Barry's lawyers making the argument that the ankle bracelet is in fact working as it needs to be. That is, if Barry leaves the county, then the ankle bracelet will be in a serviceable area and will detect that he is not where he is supposed to be....so, there is nothing to see here. That is the angle I would expect them to use. Just like "We're done" ...drinking coffee.

 

[Scootie98]

Who Placed Order? (Again)
@Teche
Iirc, AA does not specify addressee's name on package, so I don't think we know as a fact who it "belongs" to. But imo LE can determine who placed order which will help determine any criminal trespass liability.

If addressee's name on package was
ShoD, it's possible/ likely/probable, that ShoD placed the order & intentionally listed PP address for delivery.
Tends to show:
--- her action was (likely) a ruse to get on PP, and
--- some potential crim liability for her in trespassing to retrieve it.

BM may have placed order and on that order manually listed his own name as addressee and PP as delivery address by typing it in.(<- devil's advocate)
Tends to show:
--- his action was (likely) a ruse for someone, either him or someone, to get on PP, and
--- some potential crim liability for ShoD in trespassing to retrieve it.
And possibly prompt tomodify terms of BM's bond.
my2ct.

My guess is that Barry has been a customer of this nutritional supplement company for good while...Probably started ordering that stuff when he began pumping iron with George....and they delivered to Puma when he ordered it. He was trying to keep up with a younger buck. Likely, he didn't think about updating an address after he was arrested....since they wouldn't deliver steroids or energy powder to the county jail. So, when it was ordered..Barry realized it was going to the Puma address...and got SD involved...jmo.

 

[swedeheart]

Oh wow, YES! Why is it that TN is never mentioned? LE never interviewed him? I find that hard to believe!!

It is a very interesting aspect to this case, especially when you consider how hard most of Barry's family, including TN's mom, rides for the main suspect.

Maybe TN is a bit wiser than we've given him credit for here? On the other hand, I can't forget his threat to MG.

Really strange family dynamics we are dealing with here.

 

[Ontario Mom]

It is a very interesting aspect to this case, especially when you consider how hard most of Barry's family, including TN's mom, rides for the main suspect.

Maybe TN is a bit wiser than we've given him credit for here? On the other hand, I can't forget his threat to MG.

Really strange family dynamics we are dealing with here.

Which threat to MG?

 

[DizzyB]

My guess is that Barry has been a customer of this nutritional supplement company for good while...Probably started ordering that stuff when he began pumping iron with George....and they delivered to Puma when he ordered it. He was trying to keep up with a younger buck. Likely, he didn't think about updating an address after he was arrested....since they wouldn't deliver steroids or energy powder to the county jail. So, when it was ordered..Barry realized it was going to the Puma address...and got Sho Sho involved...jmo.

My one concern is that it might be the FedEx driver’s fault. The driver may have been used to delivering Barry’s stuff to his Puma Path residence, including his regular delivery of supplements. They see Morphew, they see Puma Path on the address label, they might just assume it’s Barry at 19057. The addresses are very similar, and easy to mix up. It doesn’t matter that it was misdelivered through no part of Barry’s doing, SD trespassed on private property and retrieved something. It could happen a lot.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Everybody seems to have failed when it comes to Barry being bonded out.

I don't know if everyone failed exactly. I can't go that far with a claim. When the judge ordered bond and set the conditions I'm assuming everything met those conditions. And that was all documented before they opened the jail cell door. I don't think the prosecution has an argument about being in the same subdivision as the Ritters as long as it doesn't violate the terms of the protective orders and think the primary issue is the GPS monitoring. The judge said no to Gunnison County and yes to Chaffee county but didn't stipulate where in Chaffee County so technically I do believe Barry was not in violation of the bond conditions in regard to that condition. It's a conundrum. I do not believe the judge has the legal standing to revoke bond entirely. I think the prosecutor's office is still struggling with the fact that they didn't meet proof positive presumption great so will keep on fighting the good fight...good on them...this will be a long drawn out process it sounds like, and fascinating. The bigger question of the GPS is what needs to be answered. I keep wondering about the comments originally said that Barry would be monitored to ensure he didn't leave the county....if that was the stipulation then perhaps there are different monitors or different settings that can be applied to the monitor. I just don't know and struggle even speculating. I do think this case will be tested and tested and tested on every legal aspect...no one will be able to argue that Barry didn't get a fair trial regardless of how this ends.

 

[JosieMae]

My guess is that Barry has been a customer of this nutritional supplement company for good while...Probably started ordering that stuff when he began pumping iron with George....and they delivered to Puma when he ordered it. He was trying to keep up with a younger buck. Likely, he didn't think about updating an address after he was arrested....since they wouldn't deliver steroids or energy powder to the county jail. So, when it was ordered..Barry realized it was going to the Puma address...and got Sho Sho involved...jmo.

This rings true. Brilliant!

 

[Ssschu]

Is anyone else kinda surprised that they didn't anticipate a problem with the ankle monitor right from the start? Wasn't it mentioned like 8,000 times during the investigation that there was a huge problem with cell phone reception in the area? So they outfit BM with an ankle monitor that has a gps system that relies on cell service? Mkay.

Yes and I'm also surprised they thought it was ok for him to live so close to neighbors he is forbidden from having any contact with. Nothing but crickets from the prosecution when that happened. There seems to be a real (and alarming) lack of focus in this case. Another lucky break for Barry.

 

[Ssschu]

And to further complicate things @Knox


Barry was asked where the $30,000 from the ******** page for Suzanne went ………… Barry said, "I don't recall where money went……”

Anybody else find it odd that Barry was the one questioned about the ********* account? Not a mention in the AA about Trevor. I had always assumed it was Trevor who started the ********* account and possibly managing the disbursements at least initially, wouldn't Barry have been too traumatized? Oops, silly me. Maybe that was the falling out, we keep hearing over and over about how Barry loves the money. Maybe he pushed to get it going (why not capitalize a tragedy, everybody does it ) after all there's money to be made!!! and perhaps Trevor was tuned off.

I certainly hope they questioned Trevor extensively about the following:

1. You promised to keep records of how the G** money was spent but there are no records.

2. Why did you so suddenly distance yourself from BM? Did you find out info pointing towards his guilt?

3. Why did you (along with GD) go threaten/intimidate MG a couple days after Suzanne went missing?

Trevor was in the thick of it and should definitely testify under oath. I'm hoping they are keeping his statements under wraps until trial as a strategical move.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

I certainly hope they questioned Trevor extensively about the following:

1. You promised to keep records of how the G** money was spent but there are no records.

2. Why did you so suddenly distance yourself from BM? Did you find out info pointing towards his guilt?

3. Why did you (along with GD) go threaten/intimidate MG a couple days after Suzanne went missing?

Trevor was in the thick of it and should definitely testify under oath. I'm hoping they are keeping his statements under wraps until trial as a strategical move.

Or maybe TN lawyered up early on and refused to say anything to LE.

I don't think any of BM's family really believes he is innocent.

They just value his life more than Suzanne's. And yes, I would include the oldest daughter in that. The youngest daughter is the only one who may turn on BM at some point IMO.
JMO

 

[Ontario Mom]

I certainly hope they questioned Trevor extensively about the following:

1. You promised to keep records of how the G** money was spent but there are no records.

2. Why did you so suddenly distance yourself from BM? Did you find out info pointing towards his guilt?

3. Why did you (along with GD) go threaten/intimidate MG a couple days after Suzanne went missing?

Trevor was in the thick of it and should definitely testify under oath. I'm hoping they are keeping his statements under wraps until trial as a strategical move.

This keeps coming up, the alleged "threat" to MG but from what I've read in the AA and from MG herself, she never said she was threatened at all. She also never said who said what, just that both GD and TN showed up, telling her about her "rights" and that she doesn't have to cooperate with CBI. Now I'm beginning to wonder if I've already forgotten details so, if someone can point me in the direction of the supposed threats issued to MG, I'd sure appreciate that.

 

[swedeheart]

This keeps coming up, the alleged "threat" to MG but from what I've read in the AA and from MG herself, she never said she was threatened at all. She also never said who said what, just that both GD and TN showed up, telling her about her "rights" and that she doesn't have to cooperate with CBI. Now I'm beginning to wonder if I've already forgotten details so, if someone can point me in the direction of the supposed threats issued to MG, I'd sure appreciate that.

We are talking about MG saying that TN and GD didn't want to pay her, her salary from Barry, bc it would look like "hush money." I'll try to locate the link when I have a bit more time.

Anybody got the deets on SD’s hearing? Is it on WebEx? Time?


ETA: Link: ‘I’m not the other woman’: Second contractor speaks out about Suzanne Morphew investigation | FOX21 News Colorado


"Gentile said she and Puckett packed up and drove back to Salida, where the investigation into Suzanne’s disappearance was well underway. She said, back in town, she was approached by two men, both linked to Barry, who told her, “We would give you your paycheck, but we don’t want it to look like hush-hush money. You have rights, but you don’t have to give CBI your phone.”

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Yes and I'm also surprised they thought it was ok for him to live so close to neighbors he is forbidden from having any contact with. Nothing but crickets from the prosecution when that happened. There seems to be a real (and alarming) lack of focus in this case. Another lucky break for Barry.

The protection orders generally have a distance component to them. Frankly, "contact" in a small town environment is difficult - he could run into locals on the witness list at the grocery store, gas station, restaurant.... some I'm unlittle unclear where the focus is missing.

The die was cast in my opinion when the judge said "no" to Gunnison. I don't think this is a situation that requires mass hysteria...hysteria is probably too big of a word but I just can't come up with a better one...but in general it's not an urgent need. The GPS is working...just not at the home the way it needs to. I'm sure it's working when Barry drives out of the area so they will know when he isn't home. That seems pretty straightforward. And frankly if Barry wanted to bolt to Mexico he could just cut the darn thing off...it's like an oversized FitBit looking gadget. Frankly if I were a betting person I would say the odds are greater of him harming himself before he would harm someone else.

 

[Scootie98]

Yes and I'm also surprised they thought it was ok for him to live so close to neighbors he is forbidden from having any contact with. Nothing but crickets from the prosecution when that happened. There seems to be a real (and alarming) lack of focus in this case. Another lucky break for Barry.

Points me right back to the idea that bringing in an outside legal specialist experienced in circumstantial cases would be the wise thing to do.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Points me right back to the idea that bringing in an outside legal specialist experienced in circumstantial cases would be the wise thing to do.

Probably depends on how big their budget is and how much $$ they actually want to throw into this particular case. Right now if this goes to trial alot of the budget will depend on if they have to go to outside resources for expert testimony since so much of their case theory is dependent on location based telematics activity. Just like they have to make an informed decision to prosecute or not, they also have to make a decision around the risk/reward of spending money on things like expert witnesses, additional support from outside such as other lawyers, etc. Tough decisions indeed for a smallish jurisdiction. Those types of conversations I'm sure occur on both sides of the courtroom.