OldCop
Verified Law Enforcement (retired)
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2016
- Messages
- 2,562
- Reaction score
- 62,789
Thanks, @Angleterre!Excellent post
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks, @Angleterre!Excellent post
Absolutely!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.
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
Thank you! AND thank you for your post where you itemized LE procedural steps in an investigation.Agreed!
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!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!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 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.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.
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”?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.
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.....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
Wow, I love British mysteries, true and nonfiction. I am honored to be texting you!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
You are very welcome and I am glad that it’s well receivedThank you! AND thank you for your post where you itemized LE procedural steps in an investigation.
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.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 agree wholeheartedly, @Angleterre.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
CSI Effect is a real phenomenon and a real thorn in the side of any prosecutor who has a good solid circumstantial case.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
A good kickstart to suspicion could possibly be the home surveillance camera not working. .... that would do it for me .... speculation, of course. MOOIt 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.
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.
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.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 timesA good kickstart to suspicion could possibly be the home surveillance camera not working. .... that would do it for me .... speculation, of course. MOO