Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #54 *ARREST*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not quite caught up on the thread yet, but I keep seeing mention of a statue left behind? Where did this information come from?

Thanking anyone in advance who can help me out with this.

Thank you.
 
I’m guessing that I am in the minority here, but I would like to see LE say a bit more, even if just to nudge people to jog their memory a bit and come forward. Does everyone think they have an accurate “last seen” date so they don’t need anyone’s help with that? Was it okay that LE never went to the market regarding Barry picking through trash? LE could be doing a fabulous job, but who knows. They certainly have protected the integrity of the investigation, but we don’t know how good or bad their investigation has been. Maybe they’re gun shy after the big dig that turned up nothing. We just don’t know, and I think it’s okay to question their tactics.
 
OldCop said:
RSBM
And you know this how?


What difference does it make to you what was found? How does announcing, “We found SM’s wallet/phone/helmet/shoe etc etc” make a difference in this case?
How would releasing her last verified contact make a difference to the general public? LE asked people to come forward if they spoke to SM on social media and asked people to save footage from security video between May 8th and May 12th.

You want to know it. You don’t need to know it. And that is a huge difference.

You have no right to know the evidence collected in any investigation until a case goes to trial.
People think transparency in a criminal investigation means LE has to reveal all their evidence. It does not. Transparency means that you are doing your due diligence. CCSO has provided periodic, although not frequent, information as to the status of their investigation; man hours, tips received, participating agencies, etc. They owe you no more whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...
Correct. I, as part of the great unwashed, am owed nothing. However, I am confident that there are other law enforcement agencies who would have shared more information, including the details mentioned, if they were in charge. And the same people vehemently defending CCSO today and Spezza’s approach, would also be defending a Sheriff who provides more frequent updates. The cone of silence strategy that LE has employed isn’t the gospel just because it’s LE that is employing it. I am not an LE basher - ‘I love the team, I’m just not a fan of the coach and the strategy being implemented.’

Could someone explain to me a scenario where it would not be in LE’s best interest to share Suzanne’s last sighting?
 
Minordetails said:
Correct. I, as part of the great unwashed, am owed nothing. However, I am confident that there are other law enforcement agencies who would have shared more information, including the details mentioned, if they were in charge. And the same people vehemently defending CCSO today and Spezza’s approach, would also be defending a Sheriff who provides more frequent updates. The cone of silence strategy that LE has employed isn’t the gospel just because it’s LE that is employing it. I am not an LE basher - ‘I love the team, I’m just not a fan of the coach and the strategy being implemented.’

Could someone explain to me a scenario where it would not be in LE’s best interest to share Suzanne’s last sighting?
Click to expand...

I can’t think of a good reason LE would not release the last time SM was confirmed seen by someone other than those who shared a home with her. They did say the last time was Mother’s Day, according to her husband. I guess this too falls under their veil of complete public silence on the case overall.

It will be interesting on the 1 year anniversary if they give some more detail. We’ll see.

I’m still surprised they put the tidbit about her social media activity in their last press conference. They are so tight lipped and I think that was a big deal and I’m still stuck on it. IMO
 
Just an observation and MOO, but the celebration of SMs birthday (organized by Salida friends) really brings home the fact how little her immediate family has done to keep the public’s focus on this missing mother & wife. Seeing SMs friends consoling each other at the end of LS’s video had me in tears. The message from her sister was sweet along with the songs requested. The message and prayers from the minister were poignant. It’s a damn shame her immediate family was glaringly MIA! All just MOO.
 
IMO, LE needs to keep facts protected in this case at least until they know who may be lying to them. I would not release any information if it would mislead in some way. Say someone thought they had seen her (date/time) but LE released information that she was last seen before that. So those individuals may think that they themselves were mistaken. IMO, there could be a few reasons LE is reluctant to release more information, and it all has to do with protecting the investigation. I trust LE is doing whatever they can to solve SM disappearance.
 
Minordetails said:
Correct. I, as part of the great unwashed, am owed nothing. However, I am confident that there are other law enforcement agencies who would have shared more information, including the details mentioned, if they were in charge. And the same people vehemently defending CCSO today and Spezza’s approach, would also be defending a Sheriff who provides more frequent updates. The cone of silence strategy that LE has employed isn’t the gospel just because it’s LE that is employing it. I am not an LE basher - ‘I love the team, I’m just not a fan of the coach and the strategy being implemented.’

Could someone explain to me a scenario where it would not be in LE’s best interest to share Suzanne’s last sighting?
Click to expand...
Perhaps she met with a friend on Friday and that friend doesn't want BM to know about it or want their name in the public. Perhaps the neighbor heard/saw them arguing outside on Saturday morning and that neighbor is a bit afraid. Lots of reasons.
 
K9Enzo said:
It wasn’t meant to be at all. Andy owns a business where he has public customers (IIRC). The pic reminded me of a reporter catching someone where they knew they would be in public. Is this where Andy would want to meet CM and talk about his missing sister when he’s literally working?

So, did poor Andy know CM was coming or did he just show up? IMO
Click to expand...
It looked like a publicity stunt to me.
 
Snipped from link and BBM below:

STANDARD 1.5 CONTACTS WITH THE PUBLIC DURING THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS

b) Except as a proper part of a court proceeding and in accordance with applicable rules, the prosecutor should not publicly make the following types of statements or publicly disclose the following information about an investigation:

(i) statements of belief about the guilt or innocence, character or reputation of subjects or targets of the investigation;

(ii) statements that have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a jury or jury panel;

(iii) information about the character or reputation of a person or entity under investigation, a prospective witness, or victim;

(iv) admissions, confessions, or the contents of a statement or alibi attributable to a person or entity under investigation;

(v) the performance or results of tests or the refusal or agreement of a suspect to take a test;

(vi) statements concerning the credibility or anticipated testimony of prospective witnesses

(vii) the possibility or likelihood of a plea of guilty or other disposition.

(c) The prosecutor should endeavor to dissuade police and other law enforcement agents and law enforcement personnel from making public information that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making public, or that may have an adverse impact on the investigation or any potential prosecution.

Prosecutorial Investigations

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne
 
Last edited:
Force Ten said:
It looked like a publicity stunt to me.
Click to expand...

CM is a youtuber now, so everything he does that's channel related, is definitely connected to publicizing his work on his channel. Which, is not automatically a bad thing, it's just a thing that is. He's doing good things on that channel so, I'm okay with it.

That said, I believe he genuinely does care deeply about the Moorman/Morphew family, and justice for Suzanne.

jmo
 
Choose your own adventure.

1) An arrest is made, justice is served. The end.

2) An arrest is made, found not guilty
A. Mistakes were made in the investigation. The end.
B. Sometimes people get lucky. The end.

3) An arrest is never made.
A. Perpetrator executes well thought out plan.The end.
B. Mistakes were made early on in the investigation. The end
C. Sometimes perpetrators just get lucky. The end.
 
Last edited:
At link below is an interesting article featuring a former Police Detective’s perspective.
Snipped from article:

The Secrets Police Keep
How cops decide which details of a crime to make public.

“The chief detective on a case usually decides what evidence to make public and what to withhold”.

“Police withhold evidence to help determine whether suspects they catch are guilty. If a suspect possesses nonpublic information about a crime, police reason, it is likely that he either committed it or knows who did. And a suspect’s knowledge of nonpublic information can be used against him in court. Of course, it’s tricky to get a suspect to reveal such information. During interrogations, police officers refrain from discussing nonpublic details of a crime in the hopes that a suspect will slip up and reveal that he knows some of them.”

“Withholding evidence also helps police rule out the possibility that a suspect might be confessing to a crime he didn’t commit. False confessors often piece together information about a crime by obsessively tracking news stories and assembling as many details as they can. When questioned by police, they can sometimes offer convincing explanations of how they committed the crime. Police officers are trained to quickly determine whether such suspects know about the evidence they’ve withheld.”

How cops decide which details of a crime to make public.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne
 
Last edited:
Minordetails said:
Correct. I, as part of the great unwashed, am owed nothing. However, I am confident that there are other law enforcement agencies who would have shared more information, including the details mentioned, if they were in charge. And the same people vehemently defending CCSO today and Spezza’s approach, would also be defending a Sheriff who provides more frequent updates. The cone of silence strategy that LE has employed isn’t the gospel just because it’s LE that is employing it. I am not an LE basher - ‘I love the team, I’m just not a fan of the coach and the strategy being implemented.’

Could someone explain to me a scenario where it would not be in LE’s best interest to share Suzanne’s last sighting?
Click to expand...
I don’t know whether you shower or not, @Minordetails. :eek: I did not mean to offend you. I was only responding to your statement about LE not supplying more details and you finished with, “I don’t like it”.
One thing to realize about the sharing of information with the public is that you are also sharing it with the perpetrator, whomever that might be. This allows him to form his narrative to fit the facts. When a suspect doesn’t know what LE knows, they can trip themselves up. BM is adamant that he left SM in bed sleeping on Sunday morning at 5:00 am. What if a neighbor told LE that they saw SM and BM go out together Saturday afternoon, but BM returned alone and the neighbor never saw SM again?
BM evidently told LE that he did a “mechanical thing” to his Bobcat at a time which LE knew was not the true time. They called BM out on this and his explanation was that he was shook up about his wife missing and maybe he misspoke. We never knew about this, but BM told us because it evidently weighed heavily on his mind.
Finally, if you think about it, LE did tell us when SM was reportedly last seen. Her husband said she was last seen in bed at 5:00 am on Mother’s Day. If she had been seen after that you would have heard it from LE. You would have been told she was seen biking, walking, running, or sitting at such and such a place at such and such a time. You would have been given her description and what she was wearing. If LE can find no one who has seen SM after her Thursday visit to the bike repair guy, it all goes back to BM and what he says about Sunday morning. If they found someone who saw SM on Friday or Saturday, would that make a difference since BM said he saw her on Sunday?
Do some LE Agencies give out more information than others? Yes. Do they sometimes regret it? Yes. Every single case is different though. And, the amount of information provided is usually directly proportional to the known facts and their ability to confirm them or not.
 
Minordetails said:
Choose your own adventure.

1) An arrest is made, justice is served. The end.

2) An arrest is made, found not guilty
A. Mistakes were made in the investigation. The end.
B. Sometimes people get lucky. The end.

3) An arrest is never made.
A. Perpetrator executes well thought out plan.The end.
B. Mistakes were made early on in the investigation. The end
C. Sometimes perpetrators just get lucky. The end.
Click to expand...
I understand your frustration and if only we had a crystal ball to see into the future. :rolleyes:
If this case were being investigated by just small town LE force, I’d probably be a little more nervous. But considering the premiere agencies of CBI & FBI are assisting CCSO, and after listening to the recent PE podcast featuring the new DA Linda Stanley, I have confidence this case will be solved, perpetrator held accountable/brought to successful prosecution, and Suzanne receives her due justice. These trained, skilled, knowledgeable, experienced LE professionals know what they are doing.

Having said all that, trusting the process, I’m going to choose adventure #1.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne
 
Last edited:
OldCop said:
I don’t know whether you shower or not, @Minordetails. :eek: I did not mean to offend you. I was only responding to your statement about LE not supplying more details and you finished with, “I don’t like it”.
One thing to realize about the sharing of information with the public is that you are also sharing it with the perpetrator, whomever that might be. This allows him to form his narrative to fit the facts. When a suspect doesn’t know what LE knows, they can trip themselves up. BM is adamant that he left SM in bed sleeping on Sunday morning at 5:00 am. What if a neighbor told LE that they saw SM and BM go out together Saturday afternoon, but BM returned alone and the neighbor never saw SM again?
BM evidently told LE that he did a “mechanical thing” to his Bobcat at a time which LE knew was not the true time. They called BM out on this and his explanation was that he was shook up about his wife missing and maybe he misspoke. We never knew about this, but BM told us because it evidently weighed heavily on his mind.
Finally, if you think about it, LE did tell us when SM was reportedly last seen. Her husband said she was last seen in bed at 5:00 am on Mother’s Day. If she had been seen after that you would have heard it from LE. You would have been told she was seen biking, walking, running, or sitting at such and such a place at such and such a time. You would have been given her description and what she was wearing. If LE can find no one who has seen SM after her Thursday visit to the bike repair guy, it all goes back to BM and what he says about Sunday morning. If they found someone who saw SM on Friday or Saturday, would that make a difference since BM said he saw her on Sunday?
Do some LE Agencies give out more information than others? Yes. Do they sometimes regret it? Yes. Every single case is different though. And, the amount of information provided is usually directly proportional to the known facts and their ability to confirm them or not.
Click to expand...
Keep posting. Your knowledge and professional experience shines through, and your insight is appreciated.
 
Minordetails said:
Keep posting. Your knowledge and professional experience shines through, and your insight is appreciated.
Click to expand...
Thanks, @Minordetails. You keep posting, too. It does us all good to discuss opposing views. That’s how we learn critical thinking and begin to understand why or how a person can look at the same set of facts or circumstances and come to different conclusions.
 
Minordetails said:
Correct. I, as part of the great unwashed, am owed nothing. However, I am confident that there are other law enforcement agencies who would have shared more information, including the details mentioned, if they were in charge. And the same people vehemently defending CCSO today and Spezza’s approach, would also be defending a Sheriff who provides more frequent updates. The cone of silence strategy that LE has employed isn’t the gospel just because it’s LE that is employing it. I am not an LE basher - ‘I love the team, I’m just not a fan of the coach and the strategy being implemented.’

Could someone explain to me a scenario where it would not be in LE’s best interest to share Suzanne’s last sighting?
Click to expand...
The total silence can obviously cut both ways. LE can use the information to determine who is guilty, but of course if they never make an arrest because the crucial witness never comes forward then all the secrets are for nothing.

Her last confirmed public sighting might be very important for them to release- because there might be someone out there who saw her after that or can refute the last sighting but hasn't come forward because they think LE already has that information. They might come forward if they thought LE had inaccurate or incomplete information or they might have additional information, like what she was wearing or who she was with.
 
swedeheart said:
I believe Andy is going to be on Chris M.'s live stream this evening @ 7 pm Central, for anyone interested. It's a Suzanne Q & A.
Click to expand...
Thanks bunches @swedeheart.
For those interested and time zone challenged like me sometimes lol:

5:00pm PST
6:00pm MST
7:00pm CST
8:00pm EST

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 88 more.
Total: 251 (members: 89, guests: 162)

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
162
Total visitors
251
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,832
Messages
18,246,206
Members
234,462
Latest member
Kajal
Back
Top