Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #14

[Mimi in London]

If there was damage to the bicycle, one can safely assume that BM would have mentioned this to Tyson Draper in that interview given that BM is literally doing everything he can to suggest she was either abducted or taken by a mountain lion. BM does not mention any damage to the bicycle, however; therefore I think we can safely assume that there was no damage to the bicycle. JMO.

That’s one option. Another is that BM has not been told the condition of the bike by LE. That’s not to say he doesn’t know the condition of the bike. Making it all the more intriguing as to why he may have pressed his spokesperson to ask the public to enquire about it.

 

[10ofRods]

20 years practicing law and former Adjunct Professor of Criminal Law and Procedure.

I didn't see this before asking the above question. Welcome aboard!

I made it through one year of law school (which really helped me in my applied anthropology career). I had started working my way through university as a paralegal - but not on the criminal side.

 

[oviedo]

To me it means this:

BM is not working in conjunction with LE. Further, BM made the reward contingent on a very specific and narrow condition: The safe return of SM, and that's it.

IMO SM is not safe, she's likely not alive and hasn't been this entire time, there has been no indication of a kidnapping nor demand for ransom (that we know of).

LE obviously doesn't believe SM is being held somewhere and also they have no indication she was attacked by a mountain lion.

I agree.
sigh.

 

[j_in_c]

There do seem to be striking similarities between this case and the 1997 disappearance of Amy Bechtel. Since that era, LE has made huge developmental changes in the resources available to small, remote police units for investigating big cases. The most important lesson for today's LE is to always be vigilant to the possibility of an investigation being derailed by initial pre-conceptions.
People wanting to more about that case should be advised to search using "Amy Wroe Bechtel" or "Amy Wroe". News media used her maiden name; in an unintentional, but blatant effort to disassociate the victim from her spouse, who is "always the POI until proven otherwise". IMO

Agreed - the investigative landscape has improved immensely since 1997. All cases now have digital data to be analyzed that necessitates more manpower, agencies and resources and reduces the odds of a local force succumbing to tunnel vision.

Based on LE response, I think they have some idea of what has occurred and are gathering evidence. If they believed there was a an unknown person involved, I would have expected more follow up requesting details for unknown cars at trailheads, odd persons loitering around the trails, etc. Sometimes even just asking who was at trailhead X to step forward and ID their car so they can acct for all ppl present and rule them out. And usually those kinds of details trickle out by now.

I

 

[gitana1]

I am not an attorney, just pretending to be smart here: I would be worried that even if the owner said they gave consent at the time perhaps the extent of what they consented to or motive for that consent came into question at they hypothetical trial. For example if they turned out to be an accomplice, or were in fact the guilty party.

"sure, go ahead and search over there"- that's where I buried the evidence that implicates BM. I'm the one who sent in the tip...

I bet they got a warrant to saw through the concrete even if the owner consented.

Yes. That’s the point. This is a major case and that was a major search involving property damage. I cannot think of one high profile missing person/murder case where a search was conducted involving actual property damage, without a warrant.

It defies logic. Colorado is on its toes in the cases we’ve seen. Brilliant. They’re not going to risk a case for something like that.

But let’s put aside the risk of having evidence thrown out (which I admit would be low risk if they had signed consent) or the search halted by a disgruntled property owner (which seems like high risk to me).

Do we believe LE (FBI, CBI) would expend the resources on such a high tech and involved search, on a whim? On gut instinct alone?

They used sonar, apparently, and jack hammered the cement pad in particular spots. That’s a lot to do based on no more than slight suspicion or gut instinct.

 

[carbuff]

I addressed the issue of damage to the bicycle in #655. As for what what we have (or do not have) regarding the bicycle, we do have Tyson Draper's interview with BM, and in that interview, BM discusses where and how the bicycle was found. No, that's not LE telling us where and how the bicycle was found, but it's BM telling us, and that is something.

I would phrase that as "BM discusses what he would like us to think about where the bike was found." That might or might not be close to the truth, and his motivation might or might not be pure.

If he was involved, he knows, I grant you that. If he wasn't involved, I don't see why I should consider his opinion any more reliable than the person who said it was found leaning against a bridge.

You could well be absolutely right. I'm going to wait for confirmed evidence before I rush into any judgements.

 

[10ofRods]

That’s one option. Another is that BM has not been told the condition of the bike by LE. That’s not to say he doesn’t know the condition of the bike. Making it all the more intriguing as to why he may have pressed his spokesperson to ask the public to enquire about it.

Hmm. Do you think that BM wanted the public to know more about the bike? Why would he want that? Since in theory, he never saw the bike. Naturally, he'd be curious about its condition and surely LE would have given him some info (or observant neighbors would have been standing nearby when the bike was found, I imagine).

How does BM know where the bike was? I can only assume it's either because LE told him during the early days or a neighbor showed him. He doesn't get home until the search is well under way and her bike was found some 3 hours before he returns.

 

[Cassady]

Which could then be challenged by a defense attorney and perhaps thrown out of court. It's just standard LE in CO to get a warrant. Same in CA. And many other places.

If the defense attorney represents the spouse of the missing person, they would not be able to challenge the search of the job site property. Technically they could file a motion, but the Court would rule they lacked standing.

Contrast this to the home of the missing person. Even if consent was given to search that home, LE would still get a SW. First, establishing PC to search the home of a person missing under unusual circumstances would not take a great deal of evidentiary foundation in the affidavit. Secondly, the spouse would have standing to challenge the search of their house whether it is consensual or via a SW, so LE would get a SW if they could so as to avoid the normal attack on consensual searches, which is whether or not the consent was voluntary.

In this case LE confirmed a SW at the missing person's house, but I have never heard it confirmed whether a SW existed at the job site property. That answer would be in the Chaffee County Courthouse.

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

I apologize if people have already spoken to this --- I didn't see any posts about it --- but what do people make of the fact that there's no reward listed on the new police flyer? What do people think we can infer from this? What might this mean?

I take it as a demonstration of divergence between the two, LE and BM.

 

[oviedo]

Hmm. Do you think that BM wanted the public to know more about the bike? Why would he want that? Since in theory, he never saw the bike. Naturally, he'd be curious about its condition and surely LE would have given him some info (or observant neighbors would have been standing nearby when the bike was found, I imagine).

How does BM know where the bike was? I can only assume it's either because LE told him during the early days or a neighbor showed him. He doesn't get home until the search is well under way and her bike was found some 3 hours before he returns.

Exactly - how could he even know ? I can think of one way...
JMO

 

[J.M. Bee]

To me it means this:

BM is not working in conjunction with LE. Further, BM made the reward contingent on a very specific and narrow condition: The safe return of SM, and that's it.

IMO SM is not safe, she's likely not alive and hasn't been this entire time, there has been no indication of a kidnapping nor demand for ransom (that we know of).

LE obviously doesn't believe SM is being held somewhere and also they have no indication she was attacked by a mountain lion.

OK, but if there is any chance she's still alive --- and obviously, there is still some chance, albeit slim --- wouldn't LE want to list the reward on their flyer? After all, this might coax someone into taking an action that might free Suzanne or save her life. I agree that LE thinks the chances of her still being alive are very slim, but the chances are not zero, and given that there is a $200,000 reward for her safe return, I would think they would put this on the flyer. Unless they have other intentions in mind with this omission.

 

[gitana1]

How so? If the spouse of the missing person is charged and there is evidence from the job site search used to establish the charges, the spouse would not have standing to challenge the search at the job site whether it was a consent search or a SW search. The evidence from the job site would come in and the Defendant would not have a viable challenge to the search.

The chances of the property owner being a co-conspirator are super small. I am certain that’s not the case here. LE stated that he is not involved. However, that can be true in a case like this. So why risk it?

But more importantly, this search involved property damage and expensive equipment. Have you ever seen LE conduct a search in a high profile missing person/murder investigation where they bring all that to property and destroy it, without a warrant?

I have not. It seems like a high probability that the process would be impeded by the owner and that would be a huge waste of time for nothing. There’s a reason why search warrants are LE protocol in cases like this, IMO.

 

[Dave F.]

That’s one option. Another is that BM has not been told the condition of the bike by LE. That’s not to say he doesn’t know the condition of the bike. Making it all the more intriguing as to why he may have pressed his spokesperson to ask the public to enquire about it.

Those are both very good, viable options. I tend to lean toward option number three, which would be that BLM was so frustrated with LE's refusal to tell him the condition of the bike that he vented on his nephew, who then became frustrated himself and urged the public to pressure LE to disclose the missing information.
It didn't work, regardless of which door the secret is behind. LE still hasn't disclosed a thing, and I have to admit that is even frustrating me. IMO

 

[Dave F.]

OK, but if there is any chance she's still alive --- and obviously, there is still some chance, albeit slim --- wouldn't LE want to list the reward on their flyer? After all, this might coax someone into taking an action that might free Suzanne or save her life. I agree that LE thinks the chances of her still being alive are very slim, but the chances are not zero, and given that there is a $200,000 reward for her safe return, I would think they would put this on the flyer. Unless they have other intentions in mind with this omission.

This case has been marked by what is NOT being said or done, as opposed to what is. My special area of interest is the difficult cases. I've seen quite a few. I have to admit this ranks right up the close to the top in degree of difficulty. IMO

 

[Sillybilly]

The nephew said something like "the brakes were jacked." This was the same statement where he said, "Go ask the police about the condition of the bike."

Since I had no reason not to believe the family member, I thought he was trying to say that she had had to brake suddenly. This was before we heard that the bike was "in a ravine" or "leaning under a bridge" or all those other things that are on CrimeOnline.

Then, some bicyclists mentioned that some people use a locking brake on their bikes to avoid having to have a heavy bike lock with them. The theory was that the bike was therefore not damaged, but perhaps the wheels were locked.

Just to clarify, we don't have a named source for the information about the condition of the brakes. We know the nephew wanted folks to ask LE about the condition of the bike, but he did not specify any details.

NG is an approved source at Websleuths and we trust that she has vetted her sources.

If she made reference to the locked brakes and did not give a source, perhaps it is rumor. We don't know for sure either way. You may discuss it as a possibility, you may believe it or take it with a grain of salt. Just bear in mind we don't have a named source.

 

[Poedelini]

A article about the community canvas search.

https://www.inqui sitr.com/6105022/suzanne-morphew-search-colorado/

I put a space inbetween or else it would not catch the link.

 

[Megnut]

If I promised y'all a pony, LE wouldn't put that on their flyer either.

It's not a vetted reward and therefore unendorsed.

LE is checking boxes.

JMO

And just to be clear, I haven't any ponies to give.

 

[J.M. Bee]

That’s one option. Another is that BM has not been told the condition of the bike by LE. That’s not to say he doesn’t know the condition of the bike. Making it all the more intriguing as to why he may have pressed his spokesperson to ask the public to enquire about it.

OK, but if LE didn't tell BM where and in what condition the bicycle was found, why did BM describe where and in what condition the bicycle was found to Tyson Draper, implying either that LE had told him this or that he had seen this with his own eyes when he returned home at 9pm that night?

Secondly, and this a more general question: do we think LE would have told BM about where and in what condition they found the bicycle? My assumption is that they would have done this. After all, he is the husband of a woman who has gone missing, and her bike has been found along the roadside somewhere. Wouldn't they tell him something about where and in what condition they found it? I tend to think so, but I could be wrong.

 

[oviedo]

OK, but if there is any chance she's still alive --- and obviously, there is still some chance, albeit slim --- wouldn't LE want to list the reward on their flyer? After all, this might coax someone into taking an action that might free Suzanne or save her life. I agree that LE thinks the chances of her still being alive are very slim, but the chances are not zero, and given that there is a $200,000 reward for her safe return, I would think they would put this on the flyer. Unless they have other intentions in mind with this omission.

If the money isn't in a bank or escrowed with an attorney - LE might not want it on the flyer IMO. It isn't like it was given to crimestoppers and they are handling the reward, right? so there's that.
JMO

 

[CronesEye]

And that information would likely have been very valuable had the canvassing occurred on May 12. A month later, memories being what they are, it’s likely useless. If I saw a woman biking around a month ago, covid lockdowns making pretty much every day the same, how would I ever know at this point exactly what day I saw her?

I would think any recollection would have to be verified with some other known happening so a defense attorney couldn't tear it apart due to faulty memory. Eg. I remember seeing x the day y happened.