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

[Scootie98]

So.... Barry backed the truck up, presumably to detach the trailer and Bobcat. He was in a hurry when he drove up originally, it would seem. He may also have freed up access to a garage bay and positioning the truck to block the driveway from sight.

Did LE ever impound the trailer? Was Barry ever allowed to retrieve it from the lockdowned property?

Might he have dug a very deep hole in the driveway? Buried Suzanne right there SO SHE COULD NEVER LEAVE, then backfilled it, then detached the trailer in place over the spot? And the next chance he had, bring in new rock and redo the whole driveway, which IMO was suspiciously unnecessary....

Same driveway SD jogged up.... weird way to walk on a grave. :/

Wonder if that was a typical 2 day delivery or an overnighter? Seems like even Barry knew he'd need to make it look like you ( or your agent) have a reason to be where you (or your agent) have no reason to be.

And see this is why it's so egregious and also a crime -- while the offending party can claim to have a reason to be there, the home owner does not know this. Is she armed, has she come to do harm, does she have 3 tranquilizer darts or a chipmunk gun?

There were other smarter ways to reorder or reclaim that package.

I don't, however, think it had anything to do with the package.

JMO

Would Barry be so stupid as to bring LE's attention back to the location of the body by his own decisions? I hope so...but I doubt that she is buried anywhere around the house. She is either underwater in a secluded location....or in a mineshaft or dugout grave. I even doubt that she was dismembered as some think. I think Barry made a bee line to and from the site under the cover of darkness. The lions share of his time was spent on the cover up/clean up afterwards, imo. She is likely within 25 miles of Puma Path or so....but very well hidden.

 

[Aloe]

I think she was trespassing technically, but I think the act of arresting someone for retrieving a FedX misdelivered package when no one was home to even answer a knock at the door was over the top and unnecessary. A warning should have been sufficient. Sounds more like a personal beef of the homeowner that LE did not want to mediate.

Trespassing problems and recent history of that property certainly aren't a selling point. Maybe the owners are trying to protect their investment.

 

[Seattle1]

And the written intro paragraph says she worked in nursing and management for twenty-some years since the stint in the National Guard.

IMO, whatever nursing/management SD allegedly worked at (since at least 2002) did not require a professional nurse's license!

 

[CGray123]

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 can't agree that this case - People v Neckel - governs SM's case, either.

The substance of the case is not a trespass by Neckel but his unreasonable and inappropriate response to what he perceived as a trespass. Neckel was convicted of felony menacing for threatening with a pipe a process server who had entered his property to serve a summons, and of criminal tampering for messing with his victim's car, preventing him from leaving. As you might expect, process servers are privileged to enter property to do their jobs by statute - Colorado Revised Statutes Section 18-1-701 (2)(c). There was no criminal charge of trespass against the server.

Neckel's defense was that he was entitled to use physical force to defend his property “when and to the extent it was reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believed was the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass."

These cases do not nullify Colorado's criminal trespass statutes. Until we find a case in which the court overturns a trespass conviction because the defendant was implicitly licensed to enter the property under common law, we don't have a case that will help SD's defense IMO.

 

[Seattle1]

I thought it was said they started dating 10/20?

From the AA, I believe SD claimed she did not meet BM until 10/20, and an anonymous tip cited the couple together since 6/2020 -- prompting the FBI to erect a pole camera near SD's residence. MOO

 

[Megnut]

Trespassing problems and recent history of that property certainly aren't a selling point. Maybe the owners are trying to protect their investment.

Exactly!

It wasn't a beef, it was a steak, as in a stake in the value of protection and safety and the right to keep people off their property.

We afforded Barry that right, patrolling his perimeter with a shouldered firearm.

We just thought his energies might be better spent looking for his wife.

But then, he was all done looking for her long before that. As people do.

But then, he seems to have a different set of rules for his personal use.

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

Was the package “misdelivered” if the FedEx employee delivered it to the address that was on the package?

The bigger questions are, what was in the package and why Barry had it shipped to his former address.

I can't speak to BM's ordering habits but from my own experience -- it's not difficult. For decades-- I directed all my orders delivered to my office address and not until COVID and working from home did I ever add my residence address to my PayPal account. I know for a fact that in the last 12 months I placed at least 2 orders that were unknowingly shipped to my office and not my home. Also, one back-ordered item shipped to my office although the original order shipped to my home as requested.

If BM was staying at Cushman's near PP when the order was placed, I think it could have been either intentional or in error. I don't think it beyond BM to think he's entitled to use his former address (especially if vacant most days) -- just as he felt it OK to vote for his missing wife. MOO

 

[WellThen]

Gotta love good old BM. He gets SD to pick up package at home he doesn't own, gets neighbor to call 911 to report SM missing, gets friends to threaten his employee about giving her phone to LE. This guy has management potential! Hopefully , after his @$$ lands in prison for 40 or 50 years, he'll find a managerial position at a big corporation! He'll have plenty of time to tweak his resume!!! Moo

and gets his daughters to do all kinds of things for him...like linking arms with him and skipping merrily out of jail...

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I agree that SD is still trespassing. If SD were to have taken a spill in the driveway, I can assure you that the attorneys for the property owner’s general liability insurance would most certainly have cited the no trespassing signs if SD had filed a claim.

Do I think anything will come of the charge? Probably not. But SD is known to local LE, and her boyfriend is out on bond for a murder allegedly committed on THAT property. He cannot follow rules. I really think he needs more than a simple ankle monitor that limits him to a county. The rules do not apply to him, and this is a perfect example. When you are out on bond, you don’t go a mile over the speed limit. You cannot send people over to the crime scene, for ANY reason. It’s not that hard.

Hnnn I don't agree that Barry didn't "follow" rules...in fact, it sounds more like he did follow rules by understanding that he should probably not go over to his old house. Whether or not he sent the woman "to a crime scene"....I think that is debatable. I'm not sure it has even been legally established that the house is a "crime scene." She should have knocked on the door or rang the doorbell...even if it was totally obvious no one was there in my opinion. And that is really the limit of the legal issue to me...not "whose" package it was - could have been anyone she knew and not that it was "that" house...

 

[WellThen]

Maybe Sho ordered a spy pen. I can only hope.

based on Barry's internet searches per the AA...perhaps a "How to Please Your Non-girlfriend Girlfriend/Accomplice Guide for Dummies." Or, hmm, going off Suzanne's phone list about Barry, maybe a "Guide for...???...with deers...?"

just my opinion.

 

[WellThen]

I do wonder what made BM become friendly with SD in the first place. She is certainly not one of his young sexy Salida girls and I would not have thought she was the type (too old,not rich enough) for him to consider as a serious partner.

and certainly not the woman he wanted to impregnate and have his babies (per AA -Suzanne's phone notes). Just guessing but SD might have super duper low self esteem, total lack of common sense, and desire to be a willing and eager target of manipulation by a controlling murderous man. She is the blindly loyal other woman trope and it's so tiresome.

Just my opinion

 

[al66pine]

Permission to Deliver? Gifts?

We give FedEx permission to deliver our purchase, extending permission to enter our property. Per delivery. Not when it suits them. JMO

@Megnut Good point. Agreeing that likely the vast majority of deliveries by FedEx, UPS, et al are deliveries to homes (or businesses) of those placing orders to be shipped to those addresses.
But speaking gen'ly, not to this particular delivery or circumstance, sometimes ppl place merch orders which are sent to addresses of other people (not the buyer).

If a person wants to prevent FedEx from delivering, well....what to do besides No Trespassing signs? IDK.
A couple security crocodiles or grizzly bears too????my2ct.

 

[WellThen]

I thought Barry knew her before Suzanne went missing.

This is my belief also. The AA seems to allude to this but I don't think LE had evidence to support it at the time. Especially convenient that Barry's burner phone is missing and SD deleted texts and refused to provide her phone to LE.

just my opinion

 

[WellThen]

Would Barry be so stupid as to bring LE's attention back to the location of the body by his own decisions? I hope so...but I doubt that she is buried anywhere around the house. She is either underwater in a secluded location....or in a mineshaft or dugout grave. I even doubt that she was dismembered as some think. I think Barry made a bee line to and from the site under the cover of darkness. The lions share of his time was spent on the cover up/clean up afterwards, imo. She is likely within 25 miles of Puma Path or so....but very well hidden.

I also think it's possible he had help to dispose of her body, with someone possibly driving it out of the area. I wouldn't be surprised if the missing $70K was used to pay off someone to do this, and maybe some of the money buried around the home. Barry likes to bury things.

just my opinion

 

[Seattle1]

Permission to Deliver? Gifts?

^^rsbbm

Gift delivery is another good point here. I can also see somebody sending BM a gift at his former address. I recall my mother shipping a gift to me at an incorrect address and when I tried to correct it, I learned that only the buyer/sender could make the correction. Mom was out of the country -- it was a hassle.

And we need a new subject. I'm done with this one!

 

[FromGermany1]

And we need a new subject. I'm done with this one!

New subject:

In the AA (towards the end, page 115 ie.) there are many photos of BM, sitting and standing during interviews. Him standing, he doesn't have his hands in his jeans pockets but somewhere above the pockets, maybe behind his waistband. (Please have a look and tell me exactly.)

I wonder, WHY all these pics of him and WHY even a footnote (82) about the typical way, he is clamping his hands into/behind something.
I believe, there is a certain reason for this in the AA. Does he look/stand/hold his hands just like some unidentified person, LE/FBI are searching for?

 

[Seattle1]

New subject:

In the AA (towards the end, page 115 ie.) there are many photos of BM, sitting and standing during interviews. Him standing, he doesn't have his hands in his jeans pockets but somewhere above the pockets, maybe behind his waistband. (Please have a look and tell me exactly.)

I wonder, WHY all these pics of him and WHY even a footnote (82) about the typical way, he is clamping his hands into/behind something.
I believe, there is a certain reason for this in the AA. Does he look/stand/hold his hands just like some unidentified person, LE/FBI are searching for?

I think most of the photos in the AA are by CBI and/or FBI for a variety of reasons including profiling BM by SA Grusing. Many of his hand gestures while speaking.

IMO, I also think most of the photos were taken without his knowledge. I think the later photos also tend to show BM's weight loss by spring 2021 -- just prior to his arrest. MOO

 

[Mind your biscuits]

Halloween should be interesting in Salida, people turning up at your door, uninvited, in disguise, demanding goods or threatening to do you mischief if you don't pony up said goods. I'm picturing the local jail looking like an episode of Night Court. Just kidding people. Moo.

 

[Brubon]

And BM implicated her boyfriend and daughter in the disappearance of Suzanne? Too many coincidences. What a web!

Zookeeper! Zookeeper!
May we please add the spider and the fly (flies) to our menagerie?

RIP, dear Suzanne.

IMHO

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

Trespassing problems and recent history of that property certainly aren't a selling point. Maybe the owners are trying to protect their investment.

I agree. I wouldn’t want an accused murderer, or one who associates with an accused murderer, on my property for any reason.