Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #63 *ARREST*

[CGray123]

I don't know the law on this but, at the time they made those comments to MG, BM hadn't even been charged with anything. So technically, MG wasn't even a witness yet. I'm not sure if it works this way so maybe one of our legal professionals can chime in on that one?

Colorado has three different witness tampering offenses: bribing a witness, intimidating a witness, and retaliating against a witness. I think the bribing offense might fit the circumstances:

Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-8-703. Bribing a witness or victim

(1) A person commits bribing a witness or victim if he or she offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness, or a victim, or a person he or she believes is to be called to testify as a witness or victim in any official proceeding, or upon a member of the witness' family, a member of the victim's family, a person in close relationship to the witness or victim, or a person residing in the same household as the witness or victim with intent to:

(a) Influence the witness or victim to testify falsely or unlawfully withhold any testimony;  or

(b) Induce the witness or victim to avoid legal process summoning him to testify;  or

(c) Induce the witness or victim to absent himself or herself from an official proceeding.

(2) Bribing a witness or victim is a class 4 felony.



I don't believe that charges have to be filed before a person can be considered a witness (see bolded text of the statute below.


Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-8-702. Definitions

The definitions contained in sections 18-8-301 , 18-8-501 , and 18-8-601 are applicable to the provisions of this part 7, and in addition to those definitions:

(1) “Victim” means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States.

(2) “Witness” means any natural person:

(a) Having knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of facts relating to any crime;

(b) Whose declaration under oath is received or has been received as evidence for any purpose;

(c) Who has reported any crime to any peace officer, correctional officer, or judicial officer;

(d) Who has been served with a subpoena issued under the authority of any court in this state, of any other state, or of the United States;  or

(e) Who would be believed by any reasonable person to be an individual described in paragraph (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this subsection (2).

 

[Ontario Mom]

The article quoted left off one important phrase that was included in the CCSO’s press release. (See phrase bolded by me.) Unless they had found a fully intact identifiable body, they would not have been able to say they found anything connected to SM at that time. It would be months before they would get any lab results back to confirm whether or not anything found during the search linked back to SM. And we know that we wouldn’t get any information about the lab results because this case has been sealed up tighter than a drum by all the LE agencies involved. MOO

CHAFFEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
Salida, Colorado
PRESS RELEASE
May 24, 2020

The three-day search conducted at a residence on County Road 105 on the east side of Salida has concluded. Investigators with the Chaffee County Sheriff’s Office, CBI and FBI went to the site to follow-up on leads developed during the course of the Suzanne Morphew missing person case.

Investigators searched several locations on the property; however, they were unable to make any connection to Suzanne Morphew’s case at this time. Details about the search are not available, as this is part of the active investigation.

The property owner was fully cooperative with law enforcement and not connected with the disappearance of Ms. Morphew.

“We will continue to follow-up on leads as they are identified and vetted by sheriff’s office investigators, the CBI and FBI,” said Chaffee County Sheriff John Spezze.

Hundreds of tips related to Ms. Morphew’s case have been called to the designated tip line. The public is asked to continue to report any information about this case by calling (719) 312-7530.

“Someone has that key piece of information in this case that will help us locate Suzanne, and I’m asking our community members to continue to use the tip line to provide any information, no matter how inconsequential the tip may seem,” said Sheriff Spezze.

There are no searches set for Monday. Additionally, there are no plans for a media briefing on Monday.

*****Chaffee County Sheriff John Spezze*****

Agreed for sure, and I recall it being the one thing that stood out to most of us at the time.

 

[jondaba]

Take heart, Sleuthers!

Here’s BM in the “cage” for weeks! Next hearing not set for more weeks!

Yet, Les Gals Legals have made no motion to “Free Barry!???

No bail request? Isn't that what they get paid for?

I am gonna assume they are mum because there’s NO GROUNDS for bail!

Just the opposite! The facts are absolutely damming - <modsnip>

This may be a no body case, but it will also be a “no facts” case. <modsnip> Legals will only argue: “Maybe he killed her, maybe he didn’t, but due to legal technicalities, you can’t prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt!”

They gotta say it, but the mountain of evidence towers too high to surmount.

So don’t worry about BM roaming the beautiful mountains of Colorado again.

His last big time challenge will be playing Lets Make A Deal!

 

[EggSalad]

But were they friend requests?....that is the verification I'm looking for. There is a big difference - one is a direct action by a user and the other is an algorithm of Facebook that could be triggered by who knows what - looking at a profile of an old family friend, working on a reunion, clicking on a post of Andy's if he has Facebook, a half dozen possibilities I can think of off the top of my head. Friends of my husband, my sister and brother who I don't know pop up all the time in my "people you might know" depending on what "I" click or like or do.

Yes. Friend requests as well as the algorithm making connection recommendations. IIRC, these were all people that were BM’s age and attended the same high school as BM and SM.

My theory is that BM logged into SM’s Facebook on his mobile device, which is what triggered all of this to happen.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Colorado has three different witness tampering offenses: bribing a witness, intimidating a witness, and retaliating against a witness. I think the bribing offense might fit the circumstances:

Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-8-703. Bribing a witness or victim

(1) A person commits bribing a witness or victim if he or she offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness, or a victim, or a person he or she believes is to be called to testify as a witness or victim in any official proceeding, or upon a member of the witness' family, a member of the victim's family, a person in close relationship to the witness or victim, or a person residing in the same household as the witness or victim with intent to:

(a) Influence the witness or victim to testify falsely or unlawfully withhold any testimony;  or

(b) Induce the witness or victim to avoid legal process summoning him to testify;  or

(c) Induce the witness or victim to absent himself or herself from an official proceeding.

(2) Bribing a witness or victim is a class 4 felony.



I don't believe that charges have to be filed before a person can be considered a witness (see bolded text of the statute below.


Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-8-702. Definitions

The definitions contained in sections 18-8-301 , 18-8-501 , and 18-8-601 are applicable to the provisions of this part 7, and in addition to those definitions:

(1) “Victim” means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States.

(2) “Witness” means any natural person:

(a) Having knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of facts relating to any crime;

(b) Whose declaration under oath is received or has been received as evidence for any purpose;

(c) Who has reported any crime to any peace officer, correctional officer, or judicial officer;

(d) Who has been served with a subpoena issued under the authority of any court in this state, of any other state, or of the United States;  or

(e) Who would be believed by any reasonable person to be an individual described in paragraph (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this subsection (2).

Section 2a can't really define MG though, since at the time of the confrontation with TN and GD, it had not yet been established there was any crime.

Suzanne was still just "missing" and there hadn't been any charges against BM yet.

I could be way off base but it seems it would have had to be already established that a crime had taken place, for MG to have any knowledge of facts relating to it.

I'd be curious to hear what any of our verified lawyers have to say. Can you be considered a witness to a crime before it's even been established there was a crime?

ETA: I don't think either GD or TN could even be charged with anything, since they never did threaten, bribe, intimidate, etc. (that we're aware of). All that we know that was said, was "you have rights, you don't have to give CBI your phone". That's definitely not a bribe or a threat.
‘I’m not the other woman’: Second contractor speaks out about Suzanne Morphew investigation | FOX21 News Colorado

 

[Scootie98]

Colorado has three different witness tampering offenses: bribing a witness, intimidating a witness, and retaliating against a witness. I think the bribing offense might fit the circumstances:

Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-8-703. Bribing a witness or victim

(1) A person commits bribing a witness or victim if he or she offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness, or a victim, or a person he or she believes is to be called to testify as a witness or victim in any official proceeding, or upon a member of the witness' family, a member of the victim's family, a person in close relationship to the witness or victim, or a person residing in the same household as the witness or victim with intent to:

(a) Influence the witness or victim to testify falsely or unlawfully withhold any testimony;  or

(b) Induce the witness or victim to avoid legal process summoning him to testify;  or

(c) Induce the witness or victim to absent himself or herself from an official proceeding.

(2) Bribing a witness or victim is a class 4 felony.



I don't believe that charges have to be filed before a person can be considered a witness (see bolded text of the statute below.


Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-8-702. Definitions

The definitions contained in sections 18-8-301 , 18-8-501 , and 18-8-601 are applicable to the provisions of this part 7, and in addition to those definitions:

(1) “Victim” means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States.

(2) “Witness” means any natural person:

(a) Having knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of facts relating to any crime;

(b) Whose declaration under oath is received or has been received as evidence for any purpose;

(c) Who has reported any crime to any peace officer, correctional officer, or judicial officer;

(d) Who has been served with a subpoena issued under the authority of any court in this state, of any other state, or of the United States;  or

(e) Who would be believed by any reasonable person to be an individual described in paragraph (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this subsection (2).

Not so sure 2 (a) and (e) aren't relevant to MG; afterall, she was questioned by police and they requested to see her cell phone in the course of a missing persons case. Would a reasonable person consider this person to be a witness or potential witness?

 

[OldCop]

I think Barry was comfortable in two worlds-the worlds of MG, CC and JP, and the worlds of GD, TN and the FF buddies. I don’t know that they mixed much. It sounded like none of those people were immediately suspicious when Suzanne went missing. Who knows what Barry told TN and GD about MG. So they may have been trying to protect their buddy when they paid MG. I have a feeling that all involved started looking at Barry a little different that week and wondering if they were being used.

I agree. I think BM was trying to convince both GD and TN that he was being framed by LE. BM realized almost immediately that LE wasn’t buying his story. I don’t think either GD or TN thought BM was complicit in his wife’s disappearance during the first day or two. However, as the first week passed and BM would only let TN refer to him as “The Husband”, that BM wouldn’t make a public plea, “It’s too soon”, and BM had TN help him with that pathetic 26 second video, I think both TN and GD started taking a step back from BM. I think doubts were starting to creep in. We never heard much about either one of them after that.
Tuesday of that first week was an interesting day. AM had arrived in town and began to help with the searches. MG, CC, and JP arrived back in town having left Broomfield because they had neither the tools nor the supplies needed to fix the wall. BM sent TN and GD to go have a “talk” with MG. BM was digging in the trash can at the Poncha Market. Busy, busy day……

 

[DizzyB]

The article quoted left off one important phrase that was included in the CCSO’s press release. (See phrase bolded by me.) Unless they had found a fully intact identifiable body, they would not have been able to say they found anything connected to SM at that time. It would be months before they would get any lab results back to confirm whether or not anything found during the search linked back to SM. And we know that we wouldn’t get any information about the lab results because this case has been sealed up tighter than a drum by all the LE agencies involved. MOO

CHAFFEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
Salida, Colorado
PRESS RELEASE
May 24, 2020

The three-day search conducted at a residence on County Road 105 on the east side of Salida has concluded. Investigators with the Chaffee County Sheriff’s Office, CBI and FBI went to the site to follow-up on leads developed during the course of the Suzanne Morphew missing person case.

Investigators searched several locations on the property; however, they were unable to make any connection to Suzanne Morphew’s case at this time. Details about the search are not available, as this is part of the active investigation.

The property owner was fully cooperative with law enforcement and not connected with the disappearance of Ms. Morphew.

“We will continue to follow-up on leads as they are identified and vetted by sheriff’s office investigators, the CBI and FBI,” said Chaffee County Sheriff John Spezze.

Hundreds of tips related to Ms. Morphew’s case have been called to the designated tip line. The public is asked to continue to report any information about this case by calling (719) 312-7530.

“Someone has that key piece of information in this case that will help us locate Suzanne, and I’m asking our community members to continue to use the tip line to provide any information, no matter how inconsequential the tip may seem,” said Sheriff Spezze.

There are no searches set for Monday. Additionally, there are no plans for a media briefing on Monday.

*****Chaffee County Sheriff John Spezze*****

Jumping off your “at this time”-if Suzanne’s DNA is found in more than one of the processed locations, would that then lead to the charges filed in particular? Then she would have had to have been murdered, destroyed, mutilated as per those charges. If her body wasn’t there intact, yet her DNA was, is that the inference?

 

[K9Enzo]

I talk like that at work, using phrases such as "at this time". Right now I don't have the exact info, but I might in the future. For me, it's just careful wording. It doesn't box me in. My employer expects this from me.

I took that phrase to mean LE didn't find any evidence connected to SM's case at that construction site. That's ok with me, I believe many LE will tell you not every search warrant results in evidence or expected evidence being found. IMO

 

[Error505]

Not so sure 2 (a) and (e) aren't relevant to MG; afterall, she was questioned by police and they requested to see her cell phone in the course of a missing persons case. Would a reasonable person consider this person to be a witness or potential witness?

Catching up now but wanted to comment, JP and MG both cooperated with LE, iirc MG had 5 interviews with LE (I’ll look for the link and post) But I’m sure at some point LE asked them not to discuss the investigation. I don’t think LE was worried about “witness tampering” as much as they would be concerned with cooperation in the ongoing investigation. I have a “hunch”
TN was informed he could possibly being considered “an accessory after the fact” if he was assisting BM. LE wanted cooperation from all parties concerned. The only one we are aware of not cooperating is the upstanding, loving, Christian husband, BM. My 2cents MOO.

 

[notbornyesterday]

When Beyoncé said:

He only want me when I'm not there
He better call Becky with the good hair

That’s the moment BM cared about SM, after ignoring the marriage for many years, when she was leaving and perhaps found happiness and thought a new beginning was on her horizon.

I don’t think BM had apps that gave him access to her texts, etc. He was BLIND to the real state of his marriage from SM POV. When he was faced with it, his lack of manhood, all of it, he became unhinged. IMO

It's funny but I imagine just the opposite. I think Suzanne was blindsided. I don't think until that Friday when she sent the text to her sister that she had a clue things were gone awry. I think Barry had already completely lost interest in Suzanne because look how fast he moved on. He should have been in limbo with his wife vanishing, but he wasn't. He was over her long before Mother's Day. I can see Barry always doing his own thing because he owned his own business, set his own hours and was able to get away with, whatever, like ladies on the side. I'm sure it was the possible loss of half the money that resulted in Suzanne's death though. But, it didn't bother Barry one bit. He had moved on emotionally from Suzanne. She was a non entity to him. MOO

 

[Error505]

Jumping off your “at this time”-if Suzanne’s DNA is found in more than one of the processed locations, would that then lead to the charges filed in particular? Then she would have had to have been murdered, destroyed, mutilated as per those charges. If her body wasn’t there intact, yet her DNA was, is that the inference?

MOO just moving SM’s body after she was murdered would trigger this charge. It’s standard language.

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-8-610.5. Tampering with a deceased human body.

(1) A person commits tampering with a deceased human body if, believing that an official proceeding is pending, in progress, or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority, the person willfully destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or alters a human body, part of a human body, or human remains with intent to impair its or their appearance or availability in the official proceedings.

(2) Tampering with a deceased human body is a class 3 felony.
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-8-610.5 | FindLaw

 

[Boxer]

I believe this is one of the most egregious mistakes that BM made...to pose as SM, and likely leaving a digital trail, if proven as such. I have always felt that SM will have to be discredited in some capacity during trial. That just seems to be where the narcissistic suspect gravitates to in order to defend the indefensible.

<modsnip>
3 defense strategies.

I didn't do it:
Alternative theory
Suppress evidence

I did it, but there were mitigating circumstances:
Self defense
Taunted
Impaired

I did it but I am mentally ill.

I think supressing evidence will be the main defense team strategy.
Once critical evidence is eliminated from the being presented to the jury, spinning an alternative tale of how SMs naive character brought her into danger.

 

[MsBetsy]

I agree with most of what you posted. The only problem in my mind is Andy wasn't there. Other than things that happened when Andy was first in Salida and giving first hand accounts and then returned in the fall and could give first hand accounts over and over we hear Andy said this and Andy said that and many of those are second or third hand accounts and/or his "opinion". So Andy saying the bike looked like it was thrown down doesn't mean much because he wasn't there (and didn't arrive until I think he said Tuesday but I can't remember) and didn't see it. That's a general bug a boo for "us" the public with this case...so little first hand accounts.

Yes, I'm pretty sure Andy spoke to people who were at the scene and saw the positioning of the bike. I thought it was JP who said the nephew first said it but we don't have clarification he was there. It was in the one time allowed YouTube video and now I can't seem to find it. Anyway, I'm sure Andy could have spoken with him while he was there, especially if he was one of the relatives staying at BM's friends house. Apparently there was a lot of family staying there.

Either way, Andy did gather information and probably later went to the scene where the bike was found to examine it more closely. Even before he said it looked like it was thrown down by a human, there was a lot of speculation about that right here on the thread. So one wouldn't necessarily have to be there to come to the same conclusion. We know approximately how far down the hill it was from the road, so common sense tells us it probably wasn't an accident. Imo

 

[K9Enzo]

It's funny but I imagine just the opposite. I think Suzanne was blindsided. I don't think until that Friday when she sent the text to her sister that she had a clue things were gone awry. I think Barry had already completely lost interest in Suzanne because look how fast he moved on. He should have been in limbo with his wife vanishing, but he wasn't. He was over her long before Mother's Day. I can see Barry always doing his own thing because he owned his own business, set his own hours and was able to get away with, whatever, like ladies on the side. I'm sure it was the possible loss of half the money that resulted in Suzanne's death though. But, it didn't bother Barry one bit. He had moved on emotionally from Suzanne. She was a non entity to him. MOO

We agree on several things here. I do believe BM used his work to spend time away from the home and SM. Being a business owner made it easier for him. SM's sister stated BM had an affair in IN. BM was doing his own thing. When he brought out the card and letter for that news reporter, I thought then he was so blind. He thought this was proof of a happy wife who loved him. *I* saw that card and letter from SM (I believe it was her written and expressed words) as sad, and was someone reflecting back in time of happier times.

For some guys (and women too), they can stray from a marriage, fall out of love, but when their partner does that, it's a hit to the male ego. It's a shock to some. I don't feel really strong about my opinion here. We'll see if any clarity is in the AA. IMO

ETA: link
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2835547/barry-morphew-suzanne-love-letters-after-murder/

 

[Cindizzi]

A verified friend in IN who posts (Hoosier?) said that both friend requests were made to males that were BM’s age that lived in IN, as well as connection recommendations to other IN people that knew BM and SM.

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #32

 

[10ofRods]

Section 2a can't really define MG though, since at the time of the confrontation with TN and GD, it had not yet been established there was any crime.

Suzanne was still just "missing" and there hadn't been any charges against BM yet.

I could be way off base but it seems it would have had to be already established that a crime had taken place, for MG to have any knowledge of facts relating to it.

I'd be curious to hear what any of our verified lawyers have to say. Can you be considered a witness to a crime before it's even been established there was a crime?

ETA: I don't think either GD or TN could even be charged with anything, since they never did threaten, bribe, intimidate, etc. (that we're aware of). All that we know that was said, was "you have rights, you don't have to give CBI your phone". That's definitely not a bribe or a threat.
‘I’m not the other woman’: Second contractor speaks out about Suzanne Morphew investigation | FOX21 News Colorado

Not an attorney, but the way I read the statute, all it requires is for the person who offers the bribe to know that a crime had been committed or was likely to be committed. If GD and TN were induced by Barry to offer a bribe, and Barry knew there was a crime - it's against the law.

Otherwise, bribing witnesses would be a regular thing and be perfectly legal up until the day that charges were filed. Instead, the statute is intended to warn would-be bribers that if the person who is putting them up to this task knows there's a crime, then that person is using them as an instrument of a crime. Note that the charges are against Barry - who knew there was a crime, as alleged in the charges themselves.

Barry then influenced events to make it less likely that a witness would provide her phone to authorities.

Further, it was generally known in the community that LE was treating Suzanne's disappearance as a crime, and Barry's house as a crime scene.

 

[Scootie98]

Not an attorney, but the way I read the statute, all it requires is for the person who offers the bribe to know that a crime had been committed or was likely to be committed. If GD and TN were induced by Barry to offer a bribe, and Barry knew there was a crime - it's against the law.

Otherwise, bribing witnesses would be a regular thing and be perfectly legal up until the day that charges were filed. Instead, the statute is intended to warn would-be bribers that if the person who is putting them up to this task knows there's a crime, then that person is using them as an instrument of a crime. Note that the charges are against Barry - who knew there was a crime, as alleged in the charges themselves.

Barry then influenced events to make it less likely that a witness would provide her phone to authorities.

Further, it was generally known in the community that LE was treating Suzanne's disappearance as a crime, and Barry's house as a crime scene.

At that early stage...the potential crime could have been construed as an abduction, not necessarily a murder. I only referenced this exchange between MG and the two men as a tool which LE would be in a position to use to squeeze and or flip two parties who are obviously acting on BMs behalf.

 

[MsBetsy]

Take heart, Sleuthers!

Here’s BM in the “cage” for weeks! Next hearing not set for more weeks!

Yet, Les Gals Legals have made no motion to “Free Barry!???

No bail request? Isn't that what they get paid for?

I am gonna assume they are mum because there’s NO GROUNDS for bail!

Just the opposite! The facts are absolutely damming - <modsnip>

This may be a no body case, but it will also be a “no facts” case. <modsnip> will only argue: “Maybe he killed her, maybe he didn’t, but due to legal technicalities, you can’t prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt!”

They gotta say it, but the mountain of evidence towers too high to surmount.

So don’t worry about BM roaming the beautiful mountains of Colorado again.

His last big time challenge will be playing Lets Make A Deal!

The only way I'd be happy to see Barry roam the mountains again is if he leads investigators to Suzanne's body.

 

[jondaba]

McBetsy -

viz. Fotis Dulos, Shannon Ryan, Sidney Moorer, , etc.

The sealed AA to protect the daughters.

Regrettably, there is nothing anymore to lead anyone to.

JMO