Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice* #101

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
windrower said:
I live within a days drive of Salida, and I’ve entertained the idea of going hiking there. And by hiking, I mean being out in a certain area and looking for SUZANNE’s remains. I can guarantee you, I would not contaminate a recovery scene.

Of course, I’ve been a member of WS for a lot of years, and know enough to be careful. I am not trained LE or SAR, but would never knowingly jeopardize justice for SUZANNE. I think there are others like me who want to help, want her found, and think that finding her is maybe more important than worrying about contamination.

I’d like to think that anyone searching for SUZANNE would be very cognizant of and careful with their actions.
Click to expand...

Your confidence is impressive.

My comment was safety first, the recovery scene second.

DA Stanley stated LE believes SM's remains are in a mountainous region under 5' of snow. That it's dangerous for their own investigators and chosen experienced teams to safely reach right now.

LE also believe SM is a victim of a crime. That stands to reason the location of her remains is an area where evidence recovery is crucial to a conviction in this case. Having folks who are LE trained in crime scene preservation seems important to me.

I stand firm on the safety of those who venture out that were not invited by LE. I also stand firm on the safety of SAR who get called out when someone gets themselves in a pickle.

If you haven't already, please consider a PLB such as a Garmin InReach if you do go hiking in these mountain areas. These areas are beautiful but can be very unforgiving, even to the most experienced. IMO

Garmin inReach® Satellite Communication | Garmin | United States
 
Seattle1 said:
^^rsbm

No reason to go to trial?

To be clear, death was never, ever, a penalty option for Watts, and with Watts accepting five life terms without parole, there was no need to go to trial. Also, given that DA Rourke knew far in advance that the death penalty was a no-go for the family, there was no need to go to trial.

The family of Shanann Watts told Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke they did not want to pursue the death penalty against Christopher Watts.
Click to expand...
RSBM. I disagree with OP's statements above. Here's what was said at the time.

Chris Watts won't face the death penalty and the district attorney blames the governor
Governor Hickenlooper defends his position

"'...

We have a governor who has refused to make a decision as it relates to Nathan Dunlap. I explained that to the Rzucek family and, obviously, that gives them some pause," said Rourke.

Dunlap was sentenced to death in 1996 after killing four employees at a Chuck E. Cheese and is still on death row.

Denver7 asked Governor John Hickenlooper about Dunlap's case and the criticism directed at him by Rourke.

'So it’s not a deterrent, it costs a fortune and prolongs the suffering of the families,' said Governor Hickenlooper.

He said the comments from the DA amounted to nothing more than politics.

'The bottom line is when I came in I was for the death penalty like a lot of people but when I got the facts and you see how unfair it is, it depends on which DA you get and whether they want to spend all that money. It’s very expensive, it costs baseline $15 million dollars once you get through the appeals to go through a death penalty case,' said Hickenlooper."

Decisions to prosecute, including to seek the death penalty, are solely the prosecutor's decision. They are never the victims' choice. The prosecutor can choose to pursue charges and sentences notwithstanding the victim's views. This happens often enough, especially in DV cases.

Like Watts, James Holmes (mass murderer, Aurora theater shootings) was willing to plead guilty if the DA withdrew the death penalty. Unlike Watts, there was strong evidence that he was mentally ill (schizotypal personality disorder), and some of the victims' families opposed the death penalty. The DA rejected Holmes's proposal and put the question of death to a jury, which declined to impose it.

IMO, the death penalty was most definitely an option for Chris Watts. His actions met the Colorado criteria for a death sentence, and DA Rourke could have pursued it notwithstanding the family's position (which he strongly influenced).

I'm not ready to give up on a Federal prosecution of BM, just yet. Still looking for OP's analysis whether DA Stanley, or BM, will ask for a special prosecutor ;)
 
CGray123 said:
RSBM. I disagree with OP's statements above. Here's what was said at the time.

Chris Watts won't face the death penalty and the district attorney blames the governor
Governor Hickenlooper defends his position

"'...

We have a governor who has refused to make a decision as it relates to Nathan Dunlap. I explained that to the Rzucek family and, obviously, that gives them some pause," said Rourke.

Dunlap was sentenced to death in 1996 after killing four employees at a Chuck E. Cheese and is still on death row.

Denver7 asked Governor John Hickenlooper about Dunlap's case and the criticism directed at him by Rourke.

'So it’s not a deterrent, it costs a fortune and prolongs the suffering of the families,' said Governor Hickenlooper.

He said the comments from the DA amounted to nothing more than politics.

'The bottom line is when I came in I was for the death penalty like a lot of people but when I got the facts and you see how unfair it is, it depends on which DA you get and whether they want to spend all that money. It’s very expensive, it costs baseline $15 million dollars once you get through the appeals to go through a death penalty case,' said Hickenlooper."

Decisions to prosecute, including to seek the death penalty, are solely the prosecutor's decision. They are never the victims' choice. The prosecutor can choose to pursue charges and sentences notwithstanding the victim's views. This happens often enough, especially in DV cases.

Like Watts, James Holmes (mass murderer, Aurora theater shootings) was willing to plead guilty if the DA withdrew the death penalty. Unlike Watts, there was strong evidence that he was mentally ill (schizotypal personality disorder), and some of the victims' families opposed the death penalty. The DA rejected Holmes's proposal and put the question of death to a jury, which declined to impose it.

IMO, the death penalty was most definitely an option for Chris Watts. His actions met the Colorado criteria for a death sentence, and DA Rourke could have pursued it notwithstanding the family's position (which he strongly influenced).

I'm not ready to give up on a Federal prosecution of BM, just yet. Still looking for OP's analysis whether DA Stanley, or BM, will ask for a special prosecutor ;)
Click to expand...

I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty...full stop. No one will budge me on my belief that it is wrong for any human to take the life of another human. But I can wait for some evidence including potentially finding Suzanne and a perhaps a cause of death, before I weigh in on who best to attempt another prosecution should events go that way.
 
K9Enzo said:
Your confidence is impressive.

My comment was safety first, the recovery scene second.

DA Stanley stated LE believes SM's remains are in a mountainous region under 5' of snow. That it's dangerous for their own investigators and chosen experienced teams to safely reach right now.

LE also believe SM is a victim of a crime. That stands to reason the location of her remains is an area where evidence recovery is crucial to a conviction in this case. Having folks who are LE trained in crime scene preservation seems important to me.

I stand firm on the safety of those who venture out that were not invited by LE. I also stand firm on the safety of SAR who get called out when someone gets themselves in a pickle.

If you haven't already, please consider a PLB such as a Garmin InReach if you do go hiking in these mountain areas. These areas are beautiful but can be very unforgiving, even to the most experienced. IMO

Garmin inReach® Satellite Communication | Garmin | United States
Click to expand...
LE trained? LE botched the bike scene. LE botched the first interaction with Barry at the fake staged bike scene by allowing him free reign of the area, touching the bike. LE escorted him through his house, and let him touch door handles, while retrieving freezer bags for evidence. Totally unacceptable.

On the body cam, you can clearly see they are skeptical of his story, yet don't ask him any incriminating questions. Why? Why was he treated with kiddie gloves? LE never asked" To clear you, do you mind if we take a look at your arms/hands for any evidence of a struggle/scratches?" "What was your day like yesterday?"

The location and placement of Suzannes body, when found, will point to one person. No other evidence will be needed.
 
MountainDad said:
LE trained? LE botched the bike scene. LE botched the first interaction with Barry at the fake staged bike scene by allowing him free reign of the area, touching the bike. LE escorted him through his house, and let him touch door handles, while retrieving freezer bags for evidence. Totally unacceptable.

On the body cam, you can clearly see they are skeptical of his story, yet don't ask him any incriminating questions. Why? Why was he treated with kiddie gloves? LE never asked" To clear you, do you mind if we take a look at your arms/hands for any evidence of a struggle/scratches?" "What was your day like yesterday?"

The location and placement of Suzannes body, when found, will point to one person. No other evidence will be needed.
Click to expand...
Human remains are often found by people who enjoy the outdoors and especially the high country: hikers, bikers, climbers, spelunkers, and hunters. I've never heard of a case where their discovery or their response to it resulted in the loss of crucial evidence. LE does not encourage untrained people to search, and I think their motives are honest. But they'll take the discovery and be grateful for it.

I'm with those who stress safety, though. People who love the mountains spend a lot of time learning about the altitude, the terrain, the wildlife, the weather, and all the other elements that can make the wild unsafe for newcomers who don't stay within their limits. Mines especially are very unsafe, even for those who know the danger and are prepared to deal with it.
 
K9Enzo said:
Your confidence is impressive.

My comment was safety first, the recovery scene second.

DA Stanley stated LE believes SM's remains are in a mountainous region under 5' of snow. That it's dangerous for their own investigators and chosen experienced teams to safely reach right now.

LE also believe SM is a victim of a crime. That stands to reason the location of her remains is an area where evidence recovery is crucial to a conviction in this case. Having folks who are LE trained in crime scene preservation seems important to me.

I stand firm on the safety of those who venture out that were not invited by LE. I also stand firm on the safety of SAR who get called out when someone gets themselves in a pickle.

If you haven't already, please consider a PLB such as a Garmin InReach if you do go hiking in these mountain areas. These areas are beautiful but can be very unforgiving, even to the most experienced. IMO

Garmin inReach® Satellite Communication | Garmin | United States
Click to expand...
Iirc, most bodies are found by the general public out hiking, walking, hunting, running, bicycling, etc. I just pray she’s found.
 
CGray123 said:
Human remains are often found by people who enjoy the outdoors and especially the high country: hikers, bikers, climbers, spelunkers, and hunters. I've never heard of a case where their discovery or their response to it resulted in the loss of crucial evidence. LE does not encourage untrained people to search, and I think their motives are honest. But they'll take the discovery and be grateful for it.

I'm with those who stress safety, though. People who love the mountains spend a lot of time learning about the altitude, the terrain, the wildlife, the weather, and all the other elements that can make the wild unsafe for newcomers who don't stay within their limits. Mines especially are very unsafe, even for those who know the danger and are prepared to deal with it.[/QUOTE



Andy organized a search with hundreds of volunteers. LE refused to coordinate or lend resources, even after knowing truck data, possible locations of interest, and phone evidence.



I have searched. People know their limits, and safety is a top personal priority. I believe it is wrong to tell people, don't search because you may find the body and contaminate the scene, or hurt yourself in the process.
LE has had their opportunity for 2 years to determine what happened to Suzanne, and organize searches,search warrants,interviews,interrogations, and chose to hold all info close to their vest. They have given no specifics until the motion to dismiss, in which they say they now know exactly where Suzanne is located. The general public wants justice. Searching for justice with good intentions should be encouraged. Obviously, I'm not sending my grandma down a mine shaft for clues. If you have the inclination, after doing some research on an area, to search for Suzanne Moorman, please go.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Love Never Fails said:
Iirc, most bodies are found by the general public out hiking, walking, hunting, running, bicycling, etc. I just pray she’s found.
Click to expand...

This is my guess only, most bodies recovered from high elevation mountain regions by hikers, as an example, are probably not victims of a crime. They are probably victims of an accident or being lost where they sadly perished before being rescued.

I'm hesitant with DA Stanley's comment of SM's possible location. Logistically I want to know how that was pulled off at that elevation. I'm not a big believer in BM's perceived skills. DA Stanley's was statement was also vague, I'm sure with intention, so we don't know anyway.

I hope for SM's recovery as well. What's clear to me she's located where she should not be. I'm never at risk for a standing ovation for my comments on this topic. I've said the same thing in other cases as well. It's something I feel strong about (people safety). IMO
 
K9Enzo said:
This is my guess only, most bodies recovered from high elevation mountain regions by hikers, as an example, are probably not victims of a crime. They are probably victims of an accident or being lost where they sadly perished before being rescued.

I'm hesitant with DA Stanley's comment of SM's possible location. Logistically I want to know how that was pulled off at that elevation. I'm not a big believer in BM's perceived skills. DA Stanley's was statement was also vague, I'm sure with intention, so we don't know anyway.

I hope for SM's recovery as well. What's clear to me she's located where she should not be. I'm never at risk for a standing ovation for my comments on this topic. I've said the same thing in other cases as well. It's something I feel strong about (people safety). IMO
Click to expand...

I also feel strongly on people's safety, which is why I was confused when Andy did his mass search. No assistance from LE or medical services to direct and support the process. It really baffled me. An agency has support of hundreds of people volunteering their time and efforts, and the CCSO acted as though we were stepping on their toes. Baffling.

Also, just because a person is LE certainly does not mean they are physically equipped(often the opposite is true) to search mountainous high elevation areas. These areas are best searched by hikers, hunters, and outdoor enthusiast.
 
Cindizzi said:
Whenever I think of OJ, I remember the Judge asking “ How do you plead?” and OJ saying “ 100 percent innocent “.
Every time I see BM saying “ 100 percent “ in his interviews in the Affidavit I think of that.
I probably would have never watched the OJ trial in 1995, but my Mom was on home hospice care due to cancer and I was her caregiver..
She was glued to this trial! She and I both thought he was guilty as sin.
I’m kinda glad she didn’t get to see the verdict.
JMO
Click to expand...
I'm so sorry you lost your mom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 81 more.
Total: 262 (members: 82, guests: 180)

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
180
Total visitors
262
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,641
Messages
18,242,854
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top