Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #16

[lamlawindy]

You would agree that there is a big difference between LE lying to a suspect and LE lying to the general public or making misleading statements to the press?

Well, yes, it is different. However, using the fact that investigators lied to a suspect is a tried-and-true tactic at trial. First, most people do not know that police can lie during interrogations, so jurors may believe that investigators are using illegal -- or, at the very least, unethical -- methods to obtain a confession. Second, it forces the prosecutor to explain to the jury -- through witnesses -- that investigators are allowed to lie. Even if the prosecutor manages to get the jury to believe that the investigators lying is lawful, it often doesn't make the jurors feel good about what the investigators did.

 

[oviedo]

A Chaffee County woman is missing after a neighbor said she went out for a bike ride Sunday and never returned
Chaffee County woman missing since Sunday after neighbor said she went out for bike ride

Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3
Thread #4
Thread #5
Thread #6
Thread #7
Thread #8
Thread #9
Thread #10
Thread #11
Thread #12
Thread #13
Thread #14Thread #15


Media, Maps & Timeline thread (No Discussion)

Suzanne Morphew Case Archive (developed and maintained by WS member AmandaReckonwith)

Verified Experts/Professionals posting in this thread:

10ofRods is a Verified Anthropologist
Angleterre is a Verified LE from England
riolove77 is a Verified Attorney (prosecutor)
Alethea is a Verified Attorney (defense)
otto is a Verified Expert
Chomsky is a Verified Attorney
angelainwi is a Certified Trauma Counselor
gitana1 is a Verified Attorney

Suzanne Morphew FB page
Suzanne Morphew Twitter page

And here is our verified list for SM

 

[susiQ]

My insignificant two cents on polygraphs.

If my hubby went missing, I would absolutely allow LE to print me, I’d give my DNA, my phone, my computer, allow a search of our house, my car, his car and anything else they wanted because I would be innocent. I could never kill him or anyone else. Divorce him, maybe (just kidding). What I would never do is submit to a polygraph, EVER. Why? Because I KNOW I’m innocent and if LE cannot determine that from the evidence I HAVE willing provided, I AM a suspect in their eyes and no polygraph is going to change their mind. Worse yet, what if I fail because I am an anxious/nervous sort?? They don’t believe what I’ve told them and NOW I failed the wretched polygraph!

Regardless of all that, I would be trying with all my might to publish and bring attention to finding my missing hubby. BM is not doing that. Why? LE has no power to prevent him, do they?? Neither are any of the family. No media reports on private searches being conducted either.
I think that speaks louder than any polygraph ever could.
JMHO

 

[Auntie Cipation]

You would agree that there is a big difference between LE lying to a suspect and LE lying to the general public or making misleading statements to the press?

I think LE goes out of their way to make sure statements to the public are accurate and thus some of the weird verbage you see in press releases or statements...IMO.

As the OP who initially asked about LE's legal option to lie to the public, I should clarify. Of course they want statements to the general public to be accurate, but as of now, the guilty person (whoever that might be) is still a member of the public.

If their search found something relevant, they might want to see what BM does if he thinks they didn't find it, and so for that reason they might [temporarily] present false info to the public.

Eventually, after someone is charged, I assume it would come out what actually happened, but I can see various strategic reasons why LE might want their suspect to think they know more (or less) than they actually know at that moment.

Hope that clears up any confusion?

 

[lamlawindy]

Now maybe if LE had done nothing but look at me for a year and started talking about a grand jury or arrest? Then I might stop talking. Lawyer up. Because at that point I might begin to think my cooperation hasn’t helped and they’re not doing their jobs correctly. And the shock has faded. The desperation is no longer new.

I would say, respectfully, that if one's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend is missing, then counsel should be retained immediately precisely because of the conventional wisdom that the "significant other" is always suspected. An attorney doesn't always tell his client to not speak to police; having counsel while being interrogated can be a huge asset in making sure that one's statements are not misunderstood or intentionally twisted by investigators.

 

[rogue ant]

Perhaps, police said to BM, "If you are involved, it would be in your best interest not to say anything to the public." If so, BM is taking their advice.

I don't think LE says that often. Please, experts, correct me if I'm mistaken!

I don't know... I think maybe the police would be happy to have BM make all sorts of statements to the media if he's involved. And hopefully at some point contradict himself or let something slip

 

[Cassady]

Well, yes, it is different. However, using the fact that investigators lied to a suspect is a tried-and-true tactic at trial. First, most people do not know that police can lie during interrogations, so jurors may believe that investigators are using illegal -- or, at the very least, unethical -- methods to obtain a confession. Second, it forces the prosecutor to explain to the jury -- through witnesses -- that investigators are allowed to lie. Even if the prosecutor manages to get the jury to believe that the investigators lying is lawful, it often doesn't make the jurors feel good about what the investigators did.

LE would not use the same tactics with the press. Sometimes people think LE would lie to or mislead the press to trick a suspect. IMO they would not lie to or mislead the press. They may word things funny or be vague, but not outright lie or mislead. They have to maintain credibility with the public.

IMO that is the case here. LE has been pretty straightforward with the press.

 

[Dave F.]

Yeah, that dude is pretty remarkable with what he has been able to accomplish recently. It takes guts to get up and offer to help out in the way he is.

It does take a lot of something to barge in where he is not welcome, lie and secretly record. "Guts" would have been my first choice, but it works! I'll have to agree. JMO

 

[FelicityLemon]

ITA- BBM

If she was abducted for some reason and is alive, we’d know why by now.
If she was abducted for nefarious reasons, someone somewhere would likely have spoken up by now.
Where is Suzanne?

But, how would we know? We don't know what happened to the tens of thousands of people who go missing each year in the U.S. Some of those missing people were abducted and we don't know what happened to them years or decades ago, until some of them escaped or were discovered by accident, for example. Some who were abducted were murdered and others were kept alive for years.

 

[Cassady]

I would say, respectfully, that if one's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend is missing, then counsel should be retained immediately precisely because of the conventional wisdom that the "significant other" is always suspected. An attorney doesn't always tell his client to not speak to police; having counsel while being interrogated can be a huge asset in making sure that one's statements are not misunderstood or intentionally twisted by investigators.

Not only that, but counsel can also be a conduit of information from a cooperating party to LE. They can help provide phone records credit card receipts and other potential items that could aid in the missing person search.

 

[AugustWest]

It does take a lot of something to barge in where he is not welcome, lie and secretly record. "Guts" would have been my first choice, but it works! I'll have to agree. JMO

I mean, that's fair. One could surely take it that way. I don't know if he wasn't wanted one way or another for sure. I don't have those "guts."

 

[Seattle1]

In this case LE has consistently said that the spouse of the missing person is cooperating. IMO that means he is doing everything required of him by LE.

What evidence do we have that the spouse of the missing person is not doing things to help LE? Giving DNA, phone, car, access to other records?

And if LE has requested the family to be quiet? That would explain not reaching out to the media?

People want to assume he is not cooperating, but that contradicts what LE has said....IMO

I've been following this case since the beginning and can count on one hand the limited responses to questions put to the Sheriff. In other words, when he speaks, we listen, closely.

The first statement came on about the 2nd day of the investigation. Here, the Sheriff refused to comment on whether or not the husband was cooperating with LE.

The second came a couple of days later at the very first presser where the husband and family were notably absent.

In this instance, the Sheriff responded to the same question that the husband was cooperating, and that the Sheriff hoped he would continue to do so.

Putting the two replies together, it sure sounds to me like there's nothing natural about the union between the head of the missing person's family and LE.

The following morning, the husband's spokesperson seemed to qualify the awkwardness or estrangement between husband and LE when he announced the husband's no questions asked $100K reward and request for public donations for the family's GET.

IMO, the entire delayed communication by the BM via his family spokesperson came off as more distancing from the Sheriff and investigators when that announcement would have been more than appropriate to deliver at the presser beside the Sheriff.

But yes, it is true that the Sheriff has not rescinded the "husband's cooperating" statement albeit the cooperation comes off the equivalent of satisfying a $50 fee with 5,000 pennies where one reports they are compliant, which is technically correct.

MOO

 

[lamlawindy]

LE would not use the same tactics with the press. Sometimes people think LE would lie to or mislead the press to trick a suspect. IMO they would not lie to or mislead the press. They may word things funny or be vague, but not outright lie or mislead. They have to maintain credibility with the public.

IMO that is the case here. LE has been pretty straightforward with the press.

Yes, I think you're quite right. If peace officers get a reputation for lying to the public (either directly or via the press), then they weaken the bonds with the community: people will be less likely to provide information to them. Plus, it could cause officers' reputation in the legal community to take a hit; this could affect everything from judges' willingness to issue warrants to prosecutors' willingness to file charges.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys often know which cops are straight shooters & which cops are willing to bend the truth. Believe me, no prosecutor wants to have a trial strategy collapse because a law enforcement officer witness gets caught fudging the truth. If that occurs, a jury will sometimes acquit out of anger, even if other evidence is presented that would seem to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[marylamby]

I've been following this case since the beginning and can count on one hand the limited responses to questions put to the Sheriff. In other words, when he speaks, we listen, closely.

The first statement came on about the 2nd day of the investigation. Here, the Sheriff refused to comment on whether or not the husband was cooperating with LE.

The second came a couple of days later at the very first presser where the husband and family were notably absent.

In this instance, the Sheriff responded to the same question that the husband was cooperating, and that the Sheriff hoped he would continue to do so.

Putting the two replies together, it sure sounds to me like there's nothing natural about the union between the head of the missing person's family and LE.

The following morning, the husband's spokesperson seemed to qualify the awkwardness or estrangement between husband and LE when he announced the husband's no questions asked $100K reward and request for public donations for the family's GET.

IMO, the entire delayed communication by the BM via his family spokesperson came off as more distancing from the Sheriff and investigators to make an announcement that would have been more than appropriate to deliver at the presser beside the Sheriff.

But yes, it is true that the Sheriff has not rescinded the "husband's cooperating" statement albeit the cooperation comes off the equivalent of satisfying a $50 fee with 5,000 pennies where one reports they are compliant, which is technically correct.

MOO

Thank you! I was trying to find the, "hoped he would continue to do so."

 

[mom2chloe]

I gotta say I am SHOCKED at the family's lack of involvement in the case. No appearances no information. I don't know what to think. This is not adding up as a normal missing person or even abduction case. I don't know what this is anymore. Middle aged woman married 30 plus years has 2 kids just vanishes and the family has nothing to say? What is this really?

I am a pretty private person too with significantly less social media presence than SM but I would like to think if I went missing my immediate and extended family, few close friends and coworkers would scream to media and the public in general. It’s one thing to be private and another to be unacknowledged. I have been married a long time, share two kids with my husband and am also a teacher in a small town. The silence in this case is deafening and I’m not just referring to the husband. It’s uniquely strange. IMO

 

[Fireflize]

I don't know... I think maybe the police would be happy to have BM make all sorts of statements to the media if he's involved. And hopefully at some point contradict himself or let something slip

Like, the bike wheel was facing....

 

[Moonchime]

My insignificant two cents on polygraphs.

If my hubby went missing, I would absolutely allow LE to print me, I’d give my DNA, my phone, my computer, allow a search of our house, my car, his car and anything else they wanted because I would be innocent. I could never kill him or anyone else. Divorce him, maybe (just kidding). What I would never do is submit to a polygraph, EVER. Why? Because I KNOW I’m innocent and if LE cannot determine that from the evidence I HAVE willing provided, I AM a suspect in their eyes and no polygraph is going to change their mind. Worse yet, what if I fail because I am an anxious/nervous sort?? They don’t believe what I’ve told them and NOW I failed the wretched polygraph!

Regardless of all that, I would be trying with all my might to publish and bring attention to finding my missing hubby. BM is not doing that. Why? LE has no power to prevent him, do they?? Neither are any of the family. No media reports on private searches being conducted either.
I think that speaks louder than any polygraph ever could.
JMHO

ITA. I'm such an anxious person that if my husband went missing, I'd likely look like a loon as I tried to find him!!!

When our daughter was younger, we couldn't find her for about 15 minutes and oh my goodness! We were running outside like totally lunatics screaming her name. Thank God she heard us and came running home--safe and sound. Then, we grounded her.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Haven't been able to follow at all lately - is there any new news?

 

[Moonchime]

I am a pretty private person too with significantly less social media presence than SM but I would like to think if I went missing my immediate and extended family, few close friends and coworkers would scream to media and the public in general. It’s one thing to be private and another to be unacknowledged. I have been married a long time, share two kids with my husband and am also a teacher in a small town. The silence in this case is deafening and I’m not just referring to the husband. It’s uniquely strange. IMO

This case truly is uniquely strange. It's "twilight zone" strange. I've never followed a case quite like this one--ever!

 

[KLM6]

At what point (or with what criteria) in a missing persons case do agencies offer a reward? Crime Stoppers offered a reward for info leading to Mollie Tibbets safe return, which then turned into public donations building that reward fund to a fairly large sum. Is it telling that this hasnt happened in this case, or no?