Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #60 *ARREST*

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Holy smokes. I am so glad you just said "tomorrow." I was so excited I thought it was today! Ha! I was planning on staying up late tonight (I'm in Stockholm). Looks like my plan is postponed until tomorrow! See y'all there. I surely hope we don't all overload their system! :p

Oh wouldn't that be awful to overload the system!

I don't know if it makes a difference or not, but I have my phone and laptop synced. Just don't know that much about technology.

Get a good night's sleep tonight! See you tomorrow hopefully!
 
I was hoping to avoid using my phone for it, but I just tried it the way you suggested and boom, I was in. I have to confess, it sort of creeped me out, lol.

YAY!!! Yeah, it sort of intimidated me!
Try using Seattle's instructions for your laptop. I didn't have to download the app again, but my phone and laptop are synced. Have no idea if that makes a difference or not. I'll probably use both devices.
 
With recent developments of BM’s arrest and the various serious charges filed against him, I’ve been thinking a lot about and praying for Andy and the Moorman family, cannot imagine what they’re going through. It’s all so tragic and heartbreaking.
While we wait, I’ve also been going back through some old interviews and just thought I’d repost this short video in case anyone new hasn’t seen it, or anyone else who’s interested in rewatching. It’s PE-MK & CM interview with Gene (RIP) and Andy Moorman from last August.
It’s only about 11 minutes long, a bit somber due to Gene’s declining health at the time, yet heartwarming to see how much love Gene and Andy have for Suzanne and their desire to do whatever it takes to bring her home.
Notable too, Gene and Andy commenting about their trust in the CBI, FBI, and local Sheriff’s office (CCSO), how hard the LE task force has been working to find Suzanne, and how grateful they and their family are to all LE involved, Mike, Chris, members of the community/public for all the thoughts and prayers, and for helping to keep Suzanne in the spotlight. They are truly sincere and obviously humbled by everyone coming together to support and shine a bright light on their beautiful daughter and little sister.

Meanwhile back at the ranch lol, at around the same time last August, (video reposted in the last thread), BM is barking into reporter Lauren Scharf’s ear during their phone interview criticizing LE, accusing them of messing up all the evidence, that the Sheriff probably crawling under a rock embarrassed about his ineptitude, and accusing the FBI of being liars!
Riiiiggghhhtt, BM was so upset that the Sheriff/CCSO weren’t doing their job/screwing up so much (not), you’d think he would have been camping out/showing up down at CCSO banging on the door demanding answers about what they were doing to find his missing wife, YET when LS asked, BM had no idea that there weren’t any flyers of his missing wife hanging up at the Sheriff’s office (because CCSO knew SM wasn’t “missing”).
I digress.

Even though Andy couldn’t bring Suzanne home to their Dad before he passed away, and the pursuit to find her remains and give her a proper burial still persists, I hope Gene rests a little easier today knowing he was right to trust LE, and knowing that accountability and justice for his beautiful daughter are on the horizon.


IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne
I would not leave the Morphew family out of the prayers. His mother, his siblings, his daughters. The problem with situations like this is that more often than not both families are impacted. In this case both families have handled themselves so well. I can’t help but admire them all during this year of speculation, rumor and gossip. I don’t know if I would be up to the task if I were in any one of the families shoes.
 
I can't understand the decision to live there, if I am a business owner (!!) and father of 2 teenage girls and a wife, who is ill with cancer - wonderful mountains or not. For me it doesn't make sense. It even doesn't make sense for me, to have this expensive home for renting it out sometime. These days, who does want to spend their vacation there, if totally isolated at least as far as data exchange is concerned?
I worry, how BM did participate in the dark net, if he ever wanted to use it ..... :eek:;)
Ha ha yes the dark net. Made me chuckle. We just got availability to reliable internet not that many years ago and cell phone service that works if you go up on the roof and point yourself and the phone north and the weather is decent. The internet was heaven sent because we can internet call. But I wouldn’t trade the years with an attenna, one channel that could be picked up, movies on tape and then CDs and card games with the kids and no cell phones glued to people’s hands.
 
I would not leave the Morphew family out of the prayers. His mother, his siblings, his daughters. The problem with situations like this is that more often than not both families are impacted. In this case both families have handled themselves so well. I can’t help but admire them all during this year of speculation, rumor and gossip. I don’t know if I would be up to the task if I were in any one of the families shoes.
Yes, thank you. I forgot to mention above. Perhaps you haven’t seen/read some of my previous posts mentioned that I have been praying for the Morphew daughters as well all throughout, and recognize it’s a very hard, heartbreaking situation all the way around, for those on both sides of the family.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne
 
Last edited:
I am going against the grain here. I do not think the personal item found was the bike helmet. In my opinion it was something LE did not want BM to know about, and BM said to TD LE would not reveal what the item was. I am sure BM Know what it is because he dropped it, and that it was incriminating evidence.
 
With recent developments of BM’s arrest and the various serious charges filed against him, I’ve been thinking a lot about and praying for Andy and the Moorman family, cannot imagine what they’re going through. It’s all so tragic and heartbreaking.
While we wait, I’ve also been going back through some old interviews and just thought I’d repost this short video in case anyone new hasn’t seen it, or anyone else who’s interested in rewatching. It’s PE-MK & CM interview with Gene (RIP) and Andy Moorman from last August.
It’s only about 11 minutes long, a bit somber due to Gene’s declining health at the time, yet heartwarming to see how much love Gene and Andy have for Suzanne and their desire to do whatever it takes to bring her home.
Notable too, Gene and Andy commenting about their trust in the CBI, FBI, and local Sheriff’s office (CCSO), how hard the LE task force has been working to find Suzanne, and how grateful they and their family are to all LE involved, Mike, Chris, members of the community/public for all the thoughts and prayers, and for helping to keep Suzanne in the spotlight. They are truly sincere and obviously humbled by everyone coming together to support and shine a bright light on their beautiful daughter and little sister.

Meanwhile back at the ranch lol, at around the same time last August, (video reposted in the last thread), BM is barking into reporter Lauren Scharf’s ear during their phone interview criticizing LE, accusing them of messing up all the evidence, that the Sheriff probably crawling under a rock embarrassed about his ineptitude, and accusing the FBI of being liars!
Riiiiggghhhtt, BM was so upset that the Sheriff/CCSO weren’t doing their job/screwing up so much (not), you’d think he would have been camping out/showing up down at CCSO banging on the door demanding answers about what they were doing to find his missing wife, YET when LS asked, BM had no idea that there weren’t any flyers of his missing wife hanging up at the Sheriff’s office (because CCSO knew SM wasn’t “missing”).
I digress.

Even though Andy couldn’t bring Suzanne home to their Dad before he passed away, and the pursuit to find her remains and give her a proper burial still persists, I hope Gene rests a little easier today knowing he was right to trust LE, and knowing that accountability and justice for his beautiful daughter are on the horizon.


IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne
Beautiful post @fcavanaugh I keep all of the family in my prayers as well. I am amazed at the restraint MM and AM along with their brother David, have shown over the past year with knowledge they had of SMs last text to MM. I hope Gene Moorman rests easier knowing there will be justice. I pray for the Morphews as well. The daughters have a special guardian Angel. Their situation tugs the heaviest at my heart. MOO
 
I am going against the grain here. I do not think the personal item found was the bike helmet. In my opinion it was something LE did not want BM to know about, and BM said to TD LE would not reveal what the item was. I am sure BM Know what it is because he dropped it, and that it was incriminating evidence.

ITA. In the TD video, BM refers to "an article". That tells me two things: 1. it's clothing and 2. BM knows it because he put it there.
 
I am going against the grain here. I do not think the personal item found was the bike helmet. In my opinion it was something LE did not want BM to know about, and BM said to TD LE would not reveal what the item was. I am sure BM Know what it is because he dropped it, and that it was incriminating evidence.

I totally agree with you. I never really thought it was the helmet that was found. Whatever it is, I hope it rocks the inmate to his core.

JMO
 
With recent developments of BM’s arrest and the various serious charges filed against him, I’ve been thinking a lot about and praying for Andy and the Moorman family, cannot imagine what they’re going through. It’s all so tragic and heartbreaking.
While we wait, I’ve also been going back through some old interviews and just thought I’d repost this short video in case anyone new hasn’t seen it, or anyone else who’s interested in rewatching. It’s PE-MK & CM interview with Gene (RIP) and Andy Moorman from last August.
It’s only about 11 minutes long, a bit somber due to Gene’s declining health at the time, yet heartwarming to see how much love Gene and Andy have for Suzanne and their desire to do whatever it takes to bring her home.
Notable too, Gene and Andy commenting about their trust in the CBI, FBI, and local Sheriff’s office (CCSO), how hard the LE task force has been working to find Suzanne, and how grateful they and their family are to all LE involved, Mike, Chris, members of the community/public for all the thoughts and prayers, and for helping to keep Suzanne in the spotlight. They are truly sincere and obviously humbled by everyone coming together to support and shine a bright light on their beautiful daughter and little sister.

Meanwhile back at the ranch lol, at around the same time last August, (video reposted in the last thread), BM is barking into reporter Lauren Scharf’s ear during their phone interview criticizing LE, accusing them of messing up all the evidence, that the Sheriff probably crawling under a rock embarrassed about his ineptitude, and accusing the FBI of being liars!
Riiiiggghhhtt, BM was so upset that the Sheriff/CCSO weren’t doing their job/screwing up so much (not), you’d think he would have been camping out/showing up down at CCSO banging on the door demanding answers about what they were doing to find his missing wife, YET when LS asked, BM had no idea that there weren’t any flyers of his missing wife hanging up at the Sheriff’s office (because CCSO knew SM wasn’t “missing”).
I digress.

Even though Andy couldn’t bring Suzanne home to their Dad before he passed away, and the pursuit to find her remains and give her a proper burial still persists, I hope Gene rests a little easier today knowing he was right to trust LE, and knowing that accountability and justice for his beautiful daughter are on the horizon.


IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

Such beautiful and thoughtful words.
 
Is the reason I'm able to use my cell phone when the cables are down due to having what the service company calls "hotspots?" Our cables were blown down during a recent storm. Repairs took over a week yet I was able to use cellphone data in order to connect to the internet.

Barry probably did disconnect cell service so she couldn't call anyone for help. If he disconnected wifi, the carrier records would indicate that activity, right?

You were able to use your cellular service because call service transmits via signals to towers, not cable, and the towers were not likely affected by your blown cables. Your internet service was probably disrupted by the fallen cables and your cell phone may have used data service from both the carrier or hot spots -- providing you access to the internet. MOO
 
SM was actively texting a friend, ie. the wedding, as well as her sister within 24 hour of her disappearance. She had internet....the question is....did she have a phone?
I definitely believe SM had an iPhone she was using or a tablet. If that’s the case, the iCloud will hold a ton of info. This is a screenshot from her twitter account. Note at the bottom it states Twitter for iPhone”
Mods please remove if not allowed. Thank you
EBM
<Mod Edit: https://twitter.com/srmorphew >
 

Attachments

  • C28CBF4C-3868-4E5E-8697-DD2002A51F1F.jpeg
    C28CBF4C-3868-4E5E-8697-DD2002A51F1F.jpeg
    119 KB · Views: 99
Last edited:
I definitely believe SM had an iPhone she was using or a tablet. If that’s the case, the iCloud will hold a ton of info. This is a screenshot from her tweet account. Note at the bottom it states Twitter for iPhone”
Mods please remove if not allowed. Thank you
EBM
Do you have a url link to the tweet you can include in your post? Thanks
 
Good afternoon. I have a question. I have seen previous posts that some AA info may be redacted when it is released. Who makes the request/call on what info is redacted? Thanks in advance.

Both the State or the Defense can request information in the AA redacted from the public, and it's up to the Court to grant or deny such request.

When BM was arrested and made his first appearance (Advisement), the DA advised the court they were not opposed to the unsealing and public release of the AA, and would defer to the Court to make the decision.

However, BM's then-defense wanted time to review the AA just provided them on a thumb drive and requested the AA remain sealed pending their review.

Colo. R. Crim. P. 55, provides the rules for all criminal records/documents filed with the court, and the judge reminded the defense they had 14 7 days* to file their answer whether they agreed with the DA to unseal and release the AA, or cite their reasons why the AA should not be unsealed and released.

Since we already know that the DA (i.e., the State) had no objection -- it's possible the defense will/has filed a motion requesting the AA sealed and/or certain information redacted from the public before the document unsealed. It will be the Court's decision to grant or deny the request(s).


Colorado Supreme Court holds public hearing on proposed rule for sealing and suppressing criminal court records | Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

Rule 55.1. Access to Court Records in Criminal Cases (a) Court records in criminal cases are presumed to be accessible to the public. Unless a court record or any part of a court record is otherwise inaccessible to the public pursuant to statute, rule, regulation, chief justice directive, or court order, the court may deny the public access to a court record or to any part of a court record only in compliance with this rule.

ETA: *By May 6, 2021 Order re. Public Release of AA, the Court granted 7 days to note their position. Take note that effective May 10, 2021, and pursuant to Rule 55.1 cited above, 14 days may apply.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you have a url link to the tweet you can include in your post? Thanks
Sorry @Tiff23fr , I included a link to SMs tweet in my post. Not sure why it wasn’t working.
I definitely believe SM had an iPhone she was using or a tablet. If that’s the case, the iCloud will hold a ton of info. This is a screenshot from her tweet account. Note at the bottom it states Twitter for iPhone”
Mods please remove if not allowed. Thank you
EBM
<Mod Edit: https://twitter.com/srmorphew >
https://twitter.com/srmorphew/status/849303846878945280?s=21
 
Here is the new rule on public access to criminal court records in Colorado, in its entirety. It's effective this month.

Rule 55.1. Public Access to Court Records in Criminal Cases

(a) Court records in criminal cases are presumed to be accessible to the public. Unless a court record or any part of a court record is inaccessible to the public pursuant to statute, rule, regulation, or Chief Justice Directive, the court may deny the public access to a court record or to any part of a court record only in compliance with this rule.

(1) Motion Requesting to Limit Public Access to Court Record Not Previously Filed. A party may file a motion requesting that the court limit public access to a court record not previously filed or to any part of such a court record by making it inaccessible to the public or by allowing only a redacted copy of it to be accessible to the public. The motion must be accompanied by the court record the moving party seeks to make inaccessible or partially inaccessible to the public, must be served on any opposing party, and must be identified on the publicly available Register of Actions as a motion to limit public access. An opposing party wishing to object to the motion must file a response within 14 days after service of the motion unless otherwise directed by the court. Upon receiving the motion, the clerk shall make the subject court record inaccessible to the public pending the court’s resolution of the motion, except that if a party seeks to make inaccessible to the public only parts of the subject court record, then the party must also submit a redacted version of the court record with the motion and the clerk shall make the redacted version of the court record accessible to the public without undue delay. The clerk shall also make the motion and the response inaccessible to the public pending the court’s resolution of the motion, except that, in its discretion, the court may order that the motion and the response, or redacted versions of the motion and the response, be accessible to the public during that timeframe.

(2) Motion Requesting to Limit Public Access to Court Record Previously Filed. A party may file a motion requesting that the court limit public access to a court record previously filed (including one not yet made accessible to the public) or to any part of such a court record by making it inaccessible to the public or by allowing only a redacted copy of it to be accessible to the public. The motion must identify by title and date of filing the court record the moving party seeks to make inaccessible or partially inaccessible to the public, must be served on any opposing party, and must be identified on the publicly available Register of Actions as a motion to limit public access. An opposing party wishing to object to the motion must file a response within 14 days after service of the motion unless otherwise directed by the court. Upon receiving the motion, the clerk shall make the subject court record inaccessible to the public pending the court’s resolution of the motion, except that if a party seeks to make inaccessible to the public only parts of the subject court record, then the party must submit a redacted version of the court record with the motion and the clerk shall make the redacted version of the court record accessible to the public without undue delay. The clerk shall also make the motion and the response inaccessible to the public pending the court’s resolution of the motion, except that, in its discretion, the court may order that the motion and the response, or redacted versions of the motion and the response, be accessible to the public during that timeframe.

(3) Title and Contents of Motion and Response. A motion to limit public access shall identify the court record or any part of the court record the moving party wishes to make inaccessible to the public, state the reasons for the request, and specify how long the information identified should remain inaccessible to the public. A response to a motion to limit public access shall state the reasons why the motion should be denied in whole or in part. The motion shall be titled, “Motion to Limit Public Access”; the response shall be titled, “Response to Motion to Limit Public Access.”

(4) Orders Entered on Court’s Own Motion. The court may, on its own motion, make a court record or other filing inaccessible to the public or order that only a redacted copy of it be accessible to the public. If the court does so, it must provide notice to the parties and the public via the publicly available Register of Actions and must also comply with paragraphs (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9), and (a)(10) of this rule. The clerk shall make the subject court record or filing inaccessible to the public pending the court’s final decision, except that, in its discretion, the court may order a redacted version of the court record or filing accessible to the public during that timeframe. In its discretion, the court may hold a hearing in accordance with paragraph (a)(5) of this rule before ordering on its own motion a court record or any part of a court record inaccessible to the public.

(5) Hearing. The court may conduct a hearing on a motion to limit public access to a court record or to any part of a court record. Notice of the hearing shall be provided to the parties and the public via the publicly available Register of Actions. The court may close the hearing or part of the hearing if it finds that doing so is necessary to prevent the public from accessing the information that is the subject of the motion under consideration. If the court closes the hearing or part of the hearing, it shall enter appropriate protective orders regarding the transcript or recording of the proceeding and any evidence introduced during the hearing. Any such orders shall be modified or vacated if the court ultimately denies, in whole or in part, the request to limit public access.

(6) When Request Granted. The court shall not grant any request to limit public access to a court record or to any part of a court record, or enter an order on its own motion limiting such public access, unless it issues a written order in which it:

(I) specifically identifies one or more substantial interests served by making the court record inaccessible to the public or by allowing only a redacted copy of it to be accessible to the public;

(II) finds that no less restrictive means than making the record inaccessible to the public or allowing only a redacted copy of it to be accessible to the public exists to achieve or protect any substantial interests identified; and

(III) concludes that any substantial interests identified override the presumptive public access to the court record or to an unredacted copy of it.

(7) Duration of Order Granting Request. Any order limiting public access to a court record or to any part of a court record shall indicate a date or event certain by which the order will expire. That date or event shall be considered the order’s expiration date or event.

(8) Public Access to Order Granting Request. The order limiting public access to a court record or to any part of a court record pursuant to this rule shall be accessible to the public, except that any information deemed inaccessible to the public under this rule shall be redacted from the order.

(9) Review of Order Granting Request. The court shall review any order limiting public access to a court record or to any part of a court record pursuant to this rule at the time of the expiration of the order or earlier upon motion of one of the parties. The court may postpone the expiration of such an order if, in a written order, it either determines that the findings previously made under paragraph (a)(6) of this rule continue to apply or makes new findings pursuant to paragraph (a)(6) of this rule justifying postponement of the expiration date or event. If the court postpones the expiration of the order, it must set a new expiration date or event.

(10) Limited Access to Original Court Record When Request Granted. If a court limits public access to a court record or to any part of a court record pursuant to this rule, only judges, court staff, parties to the case (and, if represented, their attorneys in that case), and other authorized Judicial Department staff shall have access to the original court record.

(11) When Request Denied. When denying a motion to limit public access to a court record or to any part of a court record under this rule, the court must ensure, without undue delay, that the public is given access to: the subject court record or the parts of that court record previously made temporarily inaccessible to the public pending resolution of the motion; the motion; any response; and, as to any hearing held, the transcript or recording of the proceeding and any evidence introduced during that proceeding.

Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, December 17, 2020, effective May 10, 2021. By the Court:
Carlos A. Samour, Jr.
Justice, Colorado Supreme Court
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
964
Total visitors
1,112

Forum statistics

Threads
605,276
Messages
18,185,130
Members
233,293
Latest member
Garc
Back
Top