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

[TMcgee]

Okay, cool, Tmcgee.......Barry was away on mothers day at another site, and I have assumed he didn't go to work after Suzanne went missing. That puts the dirt prep work at the cement site – solidly BEFORE mothers day. ????

Ah, thank you! That makes total sense now. Maybe I missed a post, but you may want to add to future posts how you came to a conclusion or write MOO.

 

[Cassady]

BM might have simply been hired to bring soil to the site. Others would have had the responsibility to compact or otherwise prepare the site for construction. Compaction often requires heavy equipment that a landscaper doesn’t own, lease or know how to operate.

IMO and based on the spouses statements in the video about prepping the job site in Denver for his workers this is likely what happened. Spouse brings in dirt and gets stuff ready for laborers to come in to spread the dirt and then someone gets it to grade using machinery so the concrete can be poured.

Thus, there could have been several people connected to that job site, not just the spouse of the missing person.

 

[kay74]

I'm fairly new here but wanted to weigh in on this. Very close friends of mine experienced a situation similar to this several years ago. A loved one disappeared virtually into thin air. For the first six months the family was in such trauma that they were not capable of comprehending or caring about public perception. Their focus was completely on finding their missing relative. The case was similar to this one in that very little information was shared and it did not get much attention outside of the immediate area. And like this case, my friend's family was never named as POI or cleared publicly but they maintained a very cooperative and collaborative relationship with law enforcement that was not disclosed or obvious to the public.

They did not engage with the media, did not hire a spokesperson, would have never considered hiring someone to do PR for them. They just focused on what mattered to them- finding their loved one. There was a lot of suspicion and criticism because they did not toss crumbs out to the circling sharks, but they did not care because addressing that negativity took energy away from their primary concern. Perhaps Suzanne's family feels the same way?

Excellent post!

 

[FelicityLemon]

Just some more of my thoughts ----pretty out there, I know, but here are a few anyway.

I say bad guy as a generic, but could also be female seizing an opportunity. Not likely, but possible.
(A female killed David Messerschmit at the Donovan Hotel. I've always thought that a female killed Missy Bevers - unsolved so far)

• SM on bike hit accidentally or deliberately, driver offers to help taking her somewhere, says she can pick up the bike later, she says "maybe just a ride to my home, it's close and I can call someone". Bad guy takes her there, finds she's alone and assaults her there and takes her ...
• unknown bad guy sees SM leaving her driveway and thinks "aha!" and goes after her on the road
• bad guy knows the family and that she'll be alone that day and the opportunity presents itself
• bike not staged by BM, just pushed or tossed off the road by bad guy
• bad guy takes her home to pick up something needed before taking her (she thinks) to medical help
• Items belonging to SM found on hwy: my thoughts are varied on what the items are

• saving videos beginning 5/8: proof when SM seen alive
• saving videos beginning 5/8: proof SM on bike and when
• saving videos beginning 5/8: evidence of stalker - repeated drive-bys, skulking on foot
• saving videos beginning 5/8: proof of other crimes or suspicious people unrelated to SM, just an opportunity to ask residents to save their videos
• saving videos beginning 5/8: evidence of the bad guy being in the area (when suspect caught)
• saving videos beginning 5/8: evidence of BM being there when he should have been in Denver - this wouldn't be crucial, just another bullet point because of GPS, cell data, etc.

 

[marylamby]

Other than that is curiosity by people not part of the case who want to know all the details, but don't have any info specific to the case.
/IMO

While you have a point, I think in this case it's more a matter of wanting to have seen BM engaging in and being vocal in conjunction with LE in finding his wife. He put the 'abduction' scenario in the forefront so it only follows that pleas for the public's assistance would follow along with a description of what she was wearing, if he did in fact see her on Sun morning.
I, personally, don't need the details from LE but if you're (he's) going to set the stage for an abduction (not saying he did, definitively) then you need to play the part, especially if you give some details without addressing the exact time you last saw your wife, where you were and any kind of timeline etc.
In other words, shut up or put up. That's what I would expect from a grief-stricken, worried husband.

 

[Cassady]

For that matter, we don't know his movements on Mother's Day either, do we? He could have swung by there on his way out of town. Moo

IMO LE knows pretty much all the movements of the spouse of the missing person from 01MAY2020 to 01JUN2020, at the least...IMO

 

[MassGuy]

Nah, not for me thanks. If I were to go missing, possibly due to an abduction, I’d want my family to be focused on doing everything within their power to find me. Doing everything might include, but not necessarily be limited to: press conferences in conjunction with LE, public appeals, releasing information about last known sighting, more complete descriptors, etc.

Not sure that the insular, silent, passive method is effective in finding missing persons. People pay more attention to family pleas.

Different strokes for different folks.

<modsnip: Duplicate quote was removed>

Here’s the thing, this isn’t a case where the missing person could be voluntarily missing, or succumbed to some unfortunate accident/incident.

Something nefarious occurred, and law enforcement knows that (look at the way this is being handled).

So any comparison to a case where the door is wide open (possibility wise), is a bad comparison. Give the significant other the benefit of the doubt, and look through the lens of an abduction scenario.

Does his behavior make any sense? Does it jibe with the behavior of other spouses in a similar case?

I would say the answer to that is an unequivocal no.

So there’s a problem here on two levels:
Law enforcement’s approach to this.
The actions of the spouse (no media interviews, no visible effort to find her).

 

[dspdenver]

Obviously BM is being treated publicly by LE as if he is a POI, therefore Tricia approved discussion of that as a possibility as long as the discussion is respectful. Sleuthing him or others, making direct accusations, derogatory comments and insinuations about them is not allowed.

Do we know when LE last did or said anything to treat BM publicly as a POI? Short of LE actually stating BM is not a POI or naming someone else as one, would WS ever rescind treating BM as a quasi-POI here and return him to full victim status?

*Not* saying that should be the case now, but if this case continues for more weeks/months with no LE updates or activity showing a focus on BM, would that change?

 

[GordianKnot]

I can understand dates being relevant to a timeline if we knew something was found there, but it is my understanding that nothing was found in relation to Suzanne's disappearance.

Colorado mom's disappearance on Mother's Day still a mystery

The sheriff's office says while they searched multiple locations on the property, they did not make any connection to Morphew's case. They also did not release details about the search.

I haven't commented on the pour date up to now, but I do think it's highly relevant, regardless of whether or not anything was found.

Here's why it matters vis-a-vis SM's disappearance:

If the concrete pour at that site occurred prior to Mother's Day, then clearly, LE does not have proof of SM being alive and well on Sunday, May 1oth.

If LE had proof that SM was in fact alive on MD, and the pour happened prior to MD, then obviously, SM could not be underneath that concrete.

LE would have zero interest in looking under that concrete if they had any proof of SM being alive AFTER it was poured, and even if for some completely irrational reason they did, no judge would sign off on a search warrant asking to look for evidence r/t her disappearance if there was evidence of her being alive AFTER the pour.

If that pour happened on 05/09, then LE does not have proof positive that SM was alive and well on 05/09.

Ditto 05/08.

Pour date matters, because it tells us a lot about LE's timeline development.

JMO.

 

[Puzzles8]

dbm - brain lapse

 

[oviedo]

Here’s the thing, this isn’t a case where the missing person could be voluntarily missing, or succumbed to some unfortunate accident/incident.

Something nefarious occurred, and law enforcement knows that (look at the way this is being handled).

So any comparison to a case where the door is wide open (possibility wise), is a bad comparison. Give the significant other the benefit of the doubt, and look through the lens of an abduction scenario.

Does his behavior make any sense? Does it jibe with the behavior of other spouses in a similar case?

I would say the answer to that is an unequivocal no.

So there’s a problem here on two levels:
Law enforcement’s approach to this.
The actions of the spouse (no media interviews, no visible effort to find her).

and i would add that the reward was not offered through crimestoppers - this is a big problem for me as it seems that he is not working with LE to find his missing wife - just doing his own thing.....
JMO

 

[gitana1]

We know nothing about the case, that’s absolutely true.

It all comes down to if one believes these agencies are competent. For the sake of argument, let’s just assume they are.

At no point did law enforcement handle this as an abduction. We haven’t seen daily press conferences, or even the usual descriptors.

What does that say? It says they don’t believe she was abducted.

As rare as an abduction would be in that place, with this victimology, it’s still possible. There has to be a solid reason that law enforcement does not believe that occurred.

We’ve seen an exhaustive search of BM’s work site, and a search of the residence.

So if Suzanne was not abducted on a bike ride, yet her bike was found discarded, then it was staged.

Who stages crime scenes? People close to the victim who want to divert attention from where it would otherwise go.

That’s it.

So we’re left with a homicide, committed by someone close to her. I see absolutely nothing in their actions to indicate they are investigating anyone other than her spouse.

My biggest question is when the other shoe drops.

That is very true. The absence of certain things is telling to me.

 

[Truecolors]

If I understand your question correctly, are you questioning why the posters were put up in Salida rather than Maysville?

Salida has a population of 5,963. It is also the county seat of Chaffee County.
Maysville has a population of 135.

I think she’s referring to posters that say Maysfield rather than Maysville, as in the images in this article (second image). Chaffee is also misspelled.

Search is on for Alexandria native missing in Colorado

MOO

 

[marylamby]

If I understand your question correctly, are you questioning why the posters were put up in Salida rather than Maysville?

Salida has a population of 5,963. It is also the county seat of Chaffee County.
Maysville has a population of 135.

Adding to that, Maysville, as far as I can tell, is simply a census-designated place in Chaffee County, Colorado, United States. The population as of the 2010 Census was 135. Wikipedia
Salida is the city address of the M home but Maysville (proper?) is the area of Salida they live in. Locals would know that and it would give them a better idea from where she supposedly went missing.

 

[Moonchime]

DBM.

 

[Minordetails]

In digging up the work site that Barry was on some time prior to mothers day, you should be able to surmise :

LE cannot confirm any contact w/ Suzanne after Barry was done dirt work on the cement site.

The key phrase being “confirm any contact.” It’s quite possible that SM’s phone continued to respond to text messages and emails right up until Mother’s Day, it’s just that LE can’t confirm, who exactly was responding.

Answering another persons’ texts and / or assuming another individual’s identity is a short term game and difficult to pull off.

 

[Puzzles8]

I think she’s referring to posters that say Maysfield rather than Maysville, as in the images in this article (second image). Chaffee is also misspelled.

Search is on for Alexandria native missing in Colorado

MOO

Thank you! Even I didn't initially see that typo, so it's not a far stretch that distraught out of town family and friends may have missed it as well.

 

[gitana1]

MassGuy, I think you've summed it up once and for all! “It all comes down to if one believes these agencies are competent.”



With the electronic infomation available to LE alone, I think a clear picture could be drawn. I find confidence in that.



A woman like Suzanne could have a secret admirer that was also “close to her” – no? A kind, beautiful woman.



I know, I know, lol, I just can't wrap my head around Barry being the type of guy that solves problems w/ murder.

That’s what people said about Chris Watts.

Also, assuming none of us know BM, how do we know what kind of person he is?

 

[Lilypad13]

I haven't commented on the pour date up to now, but I do think it's highly relevant, regardless of whether or not anything was found.

Here's why it matters vis-a-vis SM's disappearance:

If the concrete pour at that site occurred prior to Mother's Day, then clearly, LE does not have proof of SM being alive and well on Sunday, May 1oth.

If LE had proof that SM was in fact alive on MD, and the pour happened prior to MD, then obviously, SM could not be underneath that concrete.

LE would have zero interest in looking under that concrete if they had any proof of SM being alive AFTER it was poured, and even if for some completely irrational reason they did, no judge would sign off on a search warrant asking to look for evidence r/t her disappearance if there was evidence of her being alive AFTER the pour.

If that pour happened on 05/09, then LE does not have proof positive that SM was alive and well on 05/09.

Ditto 05/08.

Pour date matters, because it tells us a lot about LE's timeline development.

JMO.

Exactly! This is also what Jimbythelake was saying earlier!

 

[gitana1]

Can you elaborate on being ''staged''? I am still not sure what everybody means by that.

Finding a bike discarded doesn't mean it immediately is the result of someone staging it. She could have placed it out of sight because it malfunctioned after she crashed it.

I am also still thinking (as an possible scenario) someone hit her with an atv, but then the personal item(s) would be closer to each other and closer to the location of the bike.

Is this officially a homecide investigation now? Or did I miss that, sorry if I did.

Do you mean placed out of sight so she could walk back and not get it stolen?

As to whether this is officially a homicide investigation, LE has stated it’s a criminal investigation. The sealed search warrant proves that.