Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #15

[OldCop]

Excellent post

Thanks, @Angleterre!

 

[Angleterre]

In my opinion, and this is just me coming up with this after a month of us chewing at everything but straws. This is one of those rare cases that occur in a small town and persons may know each other or know of each other. So they may know the background of the person missing, even the type of relationship they had with their spouse. I think this is the reason such a huge LE, CBI, FBI (among other agencies) deployment and effort occurred from the moment that call was made saying Suzanne was missing.
If LE is quiet, it’s for a damn good reason.

Absolutely!

 

[Seattle1]

And our own @Angleterre posted this - and I was trying to find @riolove77 post about "one bite of the apple" where the prosecution viewpoint was posted. all very informative. IMO

Well worth the search!

@riolove77 said:

Thank you for this understanding. We only get one bite at the apple. Why jump the gun if we don't have to? There's a reason on a felony (in California) we have a three year statute of limitations to charge (not counting murder of course). I might know on day three of an investigation what the deal is, but why not take the extra time to gather my evidence? The second you charge someone, they can invoke their speedy trial rights. Why would I cut myself down to a mere 60 days on a homicide when I can have a lot more?

There is no doubt TONS of evidence in this case to go through. I'm not sure why people think they need to either arrest him NOW or announce he's been cleared and they need help after all. It's likely neither of those things. Just because we don't know what they're doing does not mean they don't know what they're doing.

Consider the intricacies of defendant rights once they've been charged. You (as a DA) do yourself no favors but jumping the gun, just to appease the public.

CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #13

People thought in Kelseys case that the prosecution had nothing but the word of KK...I remember reading so much doubt about the strength of the case, and how it was not going to be an easy one to prove because there was “nothing else”. Then it went to trial and we the public became actually privy to the facts and how much evidence the prosecution had all along. It was the slam dunk-iest case in some time.

What we don’t know does not equate what reality is. Quite the opposite.

I am currently working on a rather high profile cold case murder, which I won’t name for now. There is SO much going on in this case and I bet there are people who’ve forgotten entirely that it even exists, because you won’t hear a peep from us, and as a result, the media. WE DONT LIKE TO TALK. I can’t stress this enough. Why would I show my hand?? And in my case we already have an arrest. So we’re on far more solid ground than this three-week-old investigation.

Patience. It will come to light when it’s ready.

CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #9

I want to make a general point of saying that this case is nowhere near cold. Folks, we don't even refer to a case as cold until it's hitting the six month point. This is, what, under three weeks old? I think people are equating a lack of info from LE as them not having any. Quite the contrary - often when police and prosecutors aren't talking, it's because they have so much to say that they can't or won't. Trust me - I know.

CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #9

I don't believe he talked to her or saw her at all on Sunday. Just my opinion, nothing I know anything about. But the fact that they ask for footage from 5/8 onward means they believe whatever happened could have happened on the 9th or the 10th. Not the 8th. We always ask for a window that encompasses, so if they ask for 5/8 - 5/12, that means they think there could be valuable information on 5/9, 5/10, and/or 5/11. Not the 8th or 12th. I could be wrong, but this is just what I think.

If it's true that he is a man who was always in control etc. etc., I don't believe for a minute he asked her permission to go to his job site on Sunday. That doesn't ring true, and more so just because he made a point to say it.

I think she was last seen and/or heard from on 5/9, not at all on 5/10, and they want to know his comings and goings on 5/10 and 5/11.

JMO.

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

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

Agreed!

Thank you! AND thank you for your post where you itemized LE procedural steps in an investigation.

 

[Angleterre]

For me it's definitely something to take note of. But it's very different from knowing the evidence itself. I also think it does a bit of disservice to law enforcement to take evidence of their focus on someone and immediately make the jump to 'that person must be guilty!' Sometimes they have good reason to investigate someone and yet the investigation ends up clearing them. Sometimes they're investigating multiple people at the same time and we only learn about it much later.

Now if someone forced me to pick who did it at this exact moment in time, I'd definitely pick BM. But since we know so little and there's no reason I have to make any decision right now, I'll just wait until we know more. Right now we basically only know a few things the police have done, and then we have a few other tidbits from the Daily Mail. And based on some of the mistakes they've made in their articles, I'm not sure those really qualify as facts. And I'm not someone who puts a great deal of weight on analyses of body language or word choice.

I was randomly listening to a podcast about Nicole Vanderhayden last night. In that case she'd been fighting with her bf the night she disappeared (and had called him abusive in a text), a wire with her blood on it was found outside their shared house, and when LE questioned the bf, he refused to give DNA and lawyered up. LE got warrants for his house, his car and his DNA. And they even ended up arresting him. However, DNA eventually showed that she was murdered by someone else who had probably given her a ride home from a bar and then assaulted her outside the house. So things like that do happen. Of course there are also many, many cases where the person LE initially focuses on ends up being the culprit.

I think that with the absence of known facts and evidence, sometimes we need to look closely and observe what LE are not saying as opposed to what they are saying. For me, there would be more information given out by the sheriff and more family pleas for information to help locate SM. Therefore, I deduce, and it is merely MOO that LE know exactly what’s happened and who they are building a case against . I may be wrong and I will hold my hands up if that is the case, but I truly believe that they know and are putting together all the pieces of that jigsaw puzzle!

 

[Seattle1]

riolove77 said: ↑

Believe me, as a DA, I'm DYING to know what they have. But I'm not entitled to it!

I ALWAYS voir dire on the "CSI effect" when I'm seating a jury. And it always gets a chuckle out of potential jurors, but I tell them, especially in not-so-exciting cases, I need to know if there is anyone who is going to be upset that this doesn't play out like an episode of CSI.

Is there anyone who is going to be disappointed that I don't have a DNA expert here to testify? Anyone going to be mad this investigation wasn't handed to me with a bow on top and zero doubt? Anyone not going to be able to convict, despite me proving the case BRD, simply because the cast of Criminal Minds wasn't brought in to help us solve this?

I really want to know. I don't want those people on my jury. I don't want someone who thinks, well that's not how it happened last night on CSI, so there's reasonable doubt. No! That's not how it works in real life!

Sometimes we gather evidence for months and years before we think we have enough. It is an ethical duty we take an oath to uphold that we will NOT even file charges on a case we are not certain we can prove BRD.

We do not file cases to appease the public, to "get back at" a defendant we don't like, or to play games with anyone. It's really not like that. We don't do it to win, we don't do it to just get a conviction, and we don't do it willy nilly.

Most of us are ethical humans who believe in the oath we took to uphold the US and our respective state constitution, and to get actual justice, no matter how long it takes or where our investigation ultimately leads us.

Okay, off my soapbox.

CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #13

 

[Angleterre]

For me it's definitely something to take note of. But it's very different from knowing the evidence itself. I also think it does a bit of disservice to law enforcement to take evidence of their focus on someone and immediately make the jump to 'that person must be guilty!' Sometimes they have good reason to investigate someone and yet the investigation ends up clearing them. Sometimes they're investigating multiple people at the same time and we only learn about it much later.

Now if someone forced me to pick who did it at this exact moment in time, I'd definitely pick BM. But since we know so little and there's no reason I have to make any decision right now, I'll just wait until we know more. Right now we basically only know a few things the police have done, and then we have a few other tidbits from the Daily Mail. And based on some of the mistakes they've made in their articles, I'm not sure those really qualify as facts. And I'm not someone who puts a great deal of weight on analyses of body language or word choice.

I was randomly listening to a podcast about Nicole Vanderhayden last night. In that case she'd been fighting with her bf the night she disappeared (and had called him abusive in a text), a wire with her blood on it was found outside their shared house, and when LE questioned the bf, he refused to give DNA and lawyered up. LE got warrants for his house, his car and his DNA. And they even ended up arresting him. However, DNA eventually showed that she was murdered by someone else who had probably given her a ride home from a bar and then assaulted her outside the house. So things like that do happen. Of course there are also many, many cases where the person LE initially focuses on ends up being the culprit.

I think that with the absence of known facts and evidence, sometimes we need to look closely and observe what LE are not saying as opposed to what they are saying. For me, there would be more information given out by the sheriff and more family pleas for information to help locate SM. Therefore, I deduce, and it is merely MOO that LE know exactly what’s happened and who they are building a case against . I may be wrong and I will hold my hands up if that is the case, but I truly believe that they know and are putting together all the pieces of that jigsaw puzzle!

 

[Stripehaven]

I find it odd that a female senior citizen neighbor was selected to venture to the Morphew homestead to investigate a missing person. Did anyone consider that if this was indeed a case of foul play that she would possibly be endangering herself? At that point, according to the timeline, no one had any idea where SM was or what her circumstances were. For all they knew, she could have been a victim of a home invasion with the perps still on the premises.
Therefore, it would make more sense for BM to ask one of his firefighting or landscaping contacts to check it out. Unless perhaps he already knew that the neighbor wouldn't be endangering herself.

I just have to say it cracks me up when I see all this tutting about the neighbor being a “senior citizen.” I’m close to 70 and am perfectly capable of walking several miles and I could easily check on a neighbor using my full faculties. I’m guessing that any “senior” living in any kind of remote area is in at least decent physical and mental shape. I feel like there’s this implication she wasn’t capable of helping or evaluating the situation.

 

[OldCop]

I'm not taking up for the nephew but my nephew and niece from my husband's side of the family would say, "That is my Aunt Mel" and wouldn't reference it was on my husband's side unless asked. I've been in their lives since they were itty bitty so they know me just as well as their dad's brother (my husband). Just thinking it may not have been intentional but it totally could have been we just don't know.

Could you ever think of a time when your niece or nephew would refer to your husband as “the husband”? Just curious because the nephew speaks very fondly of his aunt but refers to BM as “the husband”. Wouldn’t you tend to say “my uncle”?

 

[Angleterre]

riolove77 said: ↑

Believe me, as a DA, I'm DYING to know what they have. But I'm not entitled to it!

I ALWAYS voir dire on the "CSI effect" when I'm seating a jury. And it always gets a chuckle out of potential jurors, but I tell them, especially in not-so-exciting cases, I need to know if there is anyone who is going to be upset that this doesn't play out like an episode of CSI.

Is there anyone who is going to be disappointed that I don't have a DNA expert here to testify? Anyone going to be mad this investigation wasn't handed to me with a bow on top and zero doubt? Anyone not going to be able to convict, despite me proving the case BRD, simply because the cast of Criminal Minds wasn't brought in to help us solve this?

I really want to know. I don't want those people on my jury. I don't want someone who thinks, well that's not how it happened last night on CSI, so there's reasonable doubt. No! That's not how it works in real life!

Sometimes we gather evidence for months and years before we think we have enough. It is an ethical duty we take an oath to uphold that we will NOT even file charges on a case we are not certain we can prove BRD.

We do not file cases to appease the public, to "get back at" a defendant we don't like, or to play games with anyone. It's really not like that. We don't do it to win, we don't do it to just get a conviction, and we don't do it willy nilly.

Most of us are ethical humans who believe in the oath we took to uphold the US and our respective state constitution, and to get actual justice, no matter how long it takes or where our investigation ultimately leads us.

Okay, off my soapbox.

CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #13

Excellent post and very well written and from the heart. Thank you for the work that you do because like my role, it’s not easy and especially when people watch Detective/Crime TV programmes that are 45 minutes long and think that’s indicative of real life.....

 

[Seattle1]

riolove77 said: ↑

THANK YOU. It's unbelievable how many times we'll be in the middle of a homicide investigation and get multiples and multiples of the following:

"Have you looked at the cell phone records?"
"Check the car GPS."
"Look at the husband. I bet he knows."
"Did you guys see the comments on [xyz victim]'s FB page?"
"Did you get the cameras from Wal-Mart?"

And then some of them get aggressive and starting tell us what WE NEED TO do.

Come on! When we ask for help, we mean it. Give us anything you know. What we don't need is general advice about how to conduct the investigation. We know.

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

 

[Feistyomi]

My thoughts on the canvassing other than the obvious reasons are that when you are building a case and you have what you as an investigator believes to be a solid case, you then have either a review officer and/or the DA/ Prosecutor who will go through the evidence to date and will say things such as- “You need to tighten up on this piece of evidence and try and support it or see if you can support it by canvassing the immediate area “ OR it may be a case of dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s because sometimes is prudent to ensure that you have covered every single angle so that when you do have a suspect who you charge (arraign) and put before the court, you don’t want the defence sowing seeds of doubt by saying - “ How do you know that “XYZ” wasn’t witnessed ? You don’t because you never canvassed the area “ etc and they may then find a DEFENSE witness in amongst a community canvas who is willing to back up the suspect by saying- “ It couldn’t have been him because I saw him in Costco or Target for example just before the time you are asking about and I followed him along the route home “ etc
Do you get where I am coming from? This could be something where the defence could “ guild the lilly’” and make something innocuous into such a hullabaloo that it creates huge reasonable doubt. So the point I am making is that sometimes you do certain things in an investigation to buffer the evidence to ensure that it is solid on the advice of the DA / Prosecution or you do it to prevent the defence from using it as a tactic to create reasonable doubt....ie. “ Your honour, with respect , my learned friend has not even got evidence of who was around at that time because the basics of a community canvas were not done. If the basics haven’t been done then what else has been omitted ? Has it not been done your honour because it’s all a fabrication of evidence against my client and the Police have had tunnel vision and gone down one route only ?” Etc ....

Just my own thoughts as a retired SIO Detective Chief with 30 years experience of investigating murders and major crime .

MOO

Wow, I love British mysteries, true and nonfiction. I am honored to be texting you!
I don’t think LE has tunnel vision. Maybe we have, because we focused only on BM, I think they have been investigating all the possibilities, except the mountain lion.
Side note I’ve lived on this property for twenty years, woods, wildlife friendly. We know there is at least one bobcat, as one of my sons’ friends saw him(her) I’ve seen footprints in sand twice, and I believe scat? once. Sort of like a a huge house cat covering it. So I haven’t ruled out mountain lions completely. They are much larger, more dangerous, but just as elusive.
Back to this case.
You are absolutely correct that they may be closing all the loopholes, tightening up the case. I may be back at the beginning, I think LE is way ahead of me. But it is sort of the same thing I am doing also, reviewing to see where I slipped up. I am an amateur. I have the blessed freedom to be wrong.
However, isn’t random stranger the hardest case to solve, based on your experience? Working this from a great distance, what do you think? I value your insight.

 

[Angleterre]

Thank you! AND thank you for your post where you itemized LE procedural steps in an investigation.

You are very welcome and I am glad that it’s well received

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

I just have to say it cracks me up when I see all this tutting about the neighbor being a “senior citizen.” I’m close to 70 and am perfectly capable of walking several miles and I could easily check on a neighbor using my full faculties. I’m guessing that any “senior” living in any kind of remote area is in at least decent physical and mental shape.

Perhaps it’s because I have a suspicious mind that, in my opinion, the elderly neighbor wasn’t an accidental or coincidental choice for initiating the 911 call. If someone intended for the first LE contact to be the most benign, least suspicious, most trustworthy, non threatening, non familial relative; then an elderly female neighbor is an excellent choice.

 

[OldCop]

My thoughts on the canvassing other than the obvious reasons are that when you are building a case and you have what you as an investigator believes to be a solid case, you then have either a review officer and/or the DA/ Prosecutor who will go through the evidence to date and will say things such as- “You need to tighten up on this piece of evidence and try and support it or see if you can support it by canvassing the immediate area “ OR it may be a case of dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s because sometimes is prudent to ensure that you have covered every single angle so that when you do have a suspect who you charge (arraign) and put before the court, you don’t want the defence sowing seeds of doubt by saying - “ How do you know that “XYZ” wasn’t witnessed ? You don’t because you never canvassed the area “ etc and they may then find a DEFENSE witness in amongst a community canvas who is willing to back up the suspect by saying- “ It couldn’t have been him because I saw him in Costco or Target for example just before the time you are asking about and I followed him along the route home “ etc
Do you get where I am coming from? This could be something where the defence could “ guild the lilly’” and make something innocuous into such a hullabaloo that it creates huge reasonable doubt. So the point I am making is that sometimes you do certain things in an investigation to buffer the evidence to ensure that it is solid on the advice of the DA / Prosecution or you do it to prevent the defence from using it as a tactic to create reasonable doubt....ie. “ Your honour, with respect , my learned friend has not even got evidence of who was around at that time because the basics of a community canvas were not done. If the basics haven’t been done then what else has been omitted ? Has it not been done your honour because it’s all a fabrication of evidence against my client and the Police have had tunnel vision and gone down one route only ?” Etc ....

Just my own thoughts as a retired SIO Detective Chief with 30 years experience of investigating murders and major crime .

MOO

I agree wholeheartedly, @Angleterre.

 

[OldCop]

riolove77 said: ↑

Believe me, as a DA, I'm DYING to know what they have. But I'm not entitled to it!

I ALWAYS voir dire on the "CSI effect" when I'm seating a jury. And it always gets a chuckle out of potential jurors, but I tell them, especially in not-so-exciting cases, I need to know if there is anyone who is going to be upset that this doesn't play out like an episode of CSI.

Is there anyone who is going to be disappointed that I don't have a DNA expert here to testify? Anyone going to be mad this investigation wasn't handed to me with a bow on top and zero doubt? Anyone not going to be able to convict, despite me proving the case BRD, simply because the cast of Criminal Minds wasn't brought in to help us solve this?

I really want to know. I don't want those people on my jury. I don't want someone who thinks, well that's not how it happened last night on CSI, so there's reasonable doubt. No! That's not how it works in real life!

Sometimes we gather evidence for months and years before we think we have enough. It is an ethical duty we take an oath to uphold that we will NOT even file charges on a case we are not certain we can prove BRD.

We do not file cases to appease the public, to "get back at" a defendant we don't like, or to play games with anyone. It's really not like that. We don't do it to win, we don't do it to just get a conviction, and we don't do it willy nilly.

Most of us are ethical humans who believe in the oath we took to uphold the US and our respective state constitution, and to get actual justice, no matter how long it takes or where our investigation ultimately leads us.

Okay, off my soapbox.

CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #13

CSI Effect is a real phenomenon and a real thorn in the side of any prosecutor who has a good solid circumstantial case.

 

[Itsapuzzle]

It takes time for the electronic footprint. What did LE see/know in the first 24 hours that made them believe that this was not a random crime, that SM did not get lost in the forest, grabbed by a cat, that she did not run off?
How many possibilities are there that they knew right off? The bike? The neighbor’s explanations as to why she called 911? Were there previous calls to LE? Was it BM and what he said on that first night? The personal item that made them know? I’m stuck on how quickly they shut down scenarios.

A good kickstart to suspicion could possibly be the home surveillance camera not working. .... that would do it for me .... speculation, of course. MOO

 

[K9Enzo]

I just have to say it cracks me up when I see all this tutting about the neighbor being a “senior citizen.” I’m close to 70 and am perfectly capable of walking several miles and I could easily check on a neighbor using my full faculties. I’m guessing that any “senior” living in any kind of remote area is in at least decent physical and mental shape. I feel like there’s this implication she wasn’t capable of helping or evaluating the situation.

Agreed. She was capable & had some sort of trust relationship with the family as the neighbor. She was called by them. Mom can’t be reached, they are probably worried about a accident. Dad & daughters are out of town. She’s going to be at the house when LE arrives, because she’s close & someone needs to be there. IMO

 

[MassGuy]

A good kickstart to suspicion could possibly be the home surveillance camera not working. .... that would do it for me .... speculation, of course. MOO

That would certainly add to it, but it just has to be something way stronger than that. She could have been lost, attacked by an animal, kidnapped by someone, or murdered by someone close to her.

Something seems to have pointed strongly to the latter. I’m perplexed as to what it could have been, as it seems to have taken 24 hours or less to reach that conclusion.

 

[Barry]

A good kickstart to suspicion could possibly be the home surveillance camera not working. .... that would do it for me .... speculation, of course. MOO

I do agree it would be suspicious. Although my experience is that equipment has the uncanny ability to fail at the most in opportune times MOO.