Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #20

[rainbowshummingbird]

That is interesting. I haven't been able to watch that podcast yet. So did the detectives think there is a possibility that more that one person are involved in Suzanne's disappearance? Am I understanding that correctly? Tia

They remarked on how often Barry says “we”as opposed to using other pronouns like “I”. If I remember correctly, they thought Barry was using language that distances himself from the situation.

 

[Fireflize]

That is interesting. I haven't been able to watch that podcast yet. So did the detectives think there is a possibility that more that one person are involved in Suzanne's disappearance? Am I understanding that correctly? Tia

After listening to the podcast, I need to nix my previous question. The detectives were not reading the use of plurals as an indication that others were involved. They were inferring that the use of plurals was possibly a "distancing" mechanism. Sorry for any confusion. Moo

 

[Knox]

I agree with everyone who says information about the investigation should be kept as sacrosanct as LE wants.

So forget the investigation. No one seems to be talking about SUZANNE the person.

What is puzzling is it appears no one who knows her is keeping SUZANNE the person at the forefront of this case. She seems to be a “shadow” victim, now barely an outline within the larger context of her life prior to going missing.

That’s what I find distressing and disturbing and so very strange.

And KLM6, I understand about the direction of the investigation and the belief that SUZANNE is probably deceased. I’m on board that train. So maybe there isn’t a way to speak about her in any effective way. Which makes me very sad for her.

I think that keeping SUZANNE the person first and foremost when it comes to this case would put pressure on whoever disappeared her. And I’m hopeful she will be found.

As always, IMO.

Thank you windrower, you stated that well. I have the same viewpoint, and have thought people who know Suzanne could speak about her without getting into topics of the investigation. They can choose a reporter and set up in certain caveats in advance, i.e., we will not answer questions about the investigation or what we think happened to Suzanne.

Is that unreasonable?

 

[RumorMonger]

It comes at about 10:30 in the live.

A rough transcription is:

Question: Do we even know who was the last one to see her?

LS: "So I did ask CBI about that and CBI told me it's part of the investigation, they are actively seeking tips from citizens, but they believe someone has seen her more recently than previously thought. And then when I asked about the question 'when is the last time someone spoke with Suzanne?'... perhaps someone has spoken with her more recently than previously thought. So it's still part of the investigation."

FWIW, she appears to look down at her notes and read from them as soon as she gets to the 'CBI told me' part. But she could be confusing a hypothetical for a definitive statement or something. Hard to know from our end. If CBI really told her that though, it seems like it might be worth more than just a mention in a facebook live. But I guess it's a hard story to write without knowing what they originally believed.

I've been thinking about this and something still doesn't sit right. "Part of the investigation" is LE speak for "F off, we aren't telling you." If you go back to Lauren Scharf's DWAP interview this was the answer she received in response to the majority of her questions to LE. The stance of LE is that we, the public, do not rate highly enough to know what they are doing. Whether that is warranted or logical has been discussed in earlier threads at length so I won't rehash that point here. What I'm getting at is that I don't understand why the answer to Ms. Scharf's question would include both "part of the investigation" and "more recently than previously thought." We won't tell you...but we'll tell you? That doesn't compute for me.

Now, "the actively seeking tips" (actively? really?) part and the "believe someone has seen her" parts might be related. Maybe what LE is saying is that, without any evidence, they have a hunch she was seen more recently than they know and they are seeking tips to substantiate that hunch. In that way, the total comment to Ms. Scharf is something along the lines of "we won't tell the public about the last time we know she was alive but we're happy for the public to tell us what they know." That sounds more like an LE thing to say. IMO

I really don't know but this one is frustrating me. Bottom line, I don't think take it as a straightforward comment they were originally of time x and they are now aware of time y. IMO

 

[al66pine]

IN. Guardianship, Checks & Balances?

... I hope that he's not given guardianship permanently.... It seems too easy to get authorization to act on someone's behalf without declaring one way or the other what happened to the legal adult who should be making those questions. And he could be getting clearance while not being declared a POI, but by October he is and then what? It seems to erase the checks and balances of dead/alive or incompetent/competent...

@AbigailHobbs sbm Yes, I see what you're saying, but --- this is a judicial procedure, following IN state law* not just BM's unilaterally deciding 'to up and sell' this IN. prop.
Briefly, the law requiring the judge, a hearing, and judge's orders provides checks & balances against a person deciding to sell prop of which person is not sole owner. Per statute, BM would have been required to present evd. of SM's absence.
If IN prop was already under contract prior to SM's disappearance, then (presumably) SM had already agreed to terms & signed doc's initially required to sell it. An IN. judge heard evd (in early July?) about SM's absentee status,* prop contract, imminent closing date, then determined she met the 'incapacitated person' definition; decided it was approp to allow BM to complete the sale of this one prop, so judge issued letter of gdn'ship & letter appointing BM as Grd'n.
And before selling another IN. prop in which SM holds/held ownership, BM will need further ct approval. jm2cts.
As always I welcome comment, clarification, or correction, esp'ly from our legal professionals.
...............................................................................................................................................................................
* I'm not saying the IN statute is good, bad, indifferent, or defending it. Just saying it is what it is. Indiana Statutes, Title 29 Probate, Article 3. Indiana Code 2019 - Indiana General Assembly, 2020 Session
GUARDIANSHIPS & PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS
"Sec. 7.5. "Incapacitated person" means an individual who:
(1) cannot be located upon reasonable inquiry;"
^ Section continues about unable to care for self, manage property, because of mental/physical illness, etc.

 

[10ofRods]

If they thought she'd last been seen on May 8 (as an example), then they found something that made them think she was still around past then.

But if they thought she'd last been seen on May 10...whoo boy. That certainly skews things. Hmmm.

OTOH, in the course of the investigation, perhaps they found that no one credible had seen or talked to Suzanne since May 2 or 3. We just don't know.

Someone has seen her more recently than we had previously thought.

It sure would change LE's focus on the digital evidence by narrowing the possible search sites. Could also exclude some suspects.

 

[Knox]

He was referring to mountain lions, and they do drag you away. Usually after eating part of you, though. But you'll never have a pack of mountain lions drag you away since they are solitary animals. I think he was yakking about what could have happened and said something descriptive like, "maybe a mountain lion, they would drag you(her) away, you know," using "they" as a reference to mountain lions in general.

I saw that episode of "Profiling Evil" and generally thought it was OK, but too much emphasis on that specific wording from BM. Frankly, his wording throughout this mess has been to distance himself from SM, and that was no different.

I'm excited to have something new to digest. After re-listening to a transcribed version of TD's interaction with BM, you may be right on the mountain lion generalization. But his language and interaction with TD is still worth studying.

Especially the end of the interview where he talks about going to Denver and how the 911 call came about. If Barry is proven to have something to do with Suzanne's disappearance, the premeditation aspect is clearly spelled out in his description of events to TD. MOO.

 

[Feistyomi]

And this is somewhat suspicious. Imagine someone comes home, and the spouse had disappeared. What would be the response? I think, bombarding police with questions, not throwing theories at LE. The difference between “what do you think happened to my wife?”, and “I think it was a mountain lion” is the same as between open-ended and closed-ended question - the second, essentially, offers no alternative scenarios, and maybe be misleading.

The mountain lion theory didn’t originate with BM. IMO It was already in play when he got back from Denver. Unlike Letecia, who clearly threw out numerous “original” theories, BM has never steered this investigation in any direction. MOO He has been blindsided from day 1. He has never attempted to control the narrative. This speaks to his innocence as well, had he pulled off this sort of a disappearance, and 2 months later, SM is still missing. surely he would have premeditated a better scenario than mountain lion. JMO
We can’t have it both ways.
I believe empathy exists in most of us, but in just the basic form. Some, indeed never have it, and will never develop it.
I remember nurturing it in my children, different techniques. The golden rule, put yourself in the other person’s shoes. One of my newer favorites, anonymous quote, “be kind, everyone you meet is fighting a terrible battle”. The key word for me, kind. I cried when one of my difficult teenage daughter’s counselors, described her as kind. It gave me hope.
Point to this, most of us have put ourselves in BMs place, and judged him as we think he should have reacted. We’ve based it on our own personal experiences, or our past cases here.
I’d like to challenge us all to take those preconceptions and set them aside.

To really walk in the other persons shoes, you have to go back to the very beginning.
A simple, very happy family, yes SM was alone on MD, no big deal, she knows she is loved and cherished, on a daily basis. Consider this, who the heck planned a MD camp out? They weren’t the only ones missing for MD.
Things are totally normal. You have plans for Monday, to be a special day, and so on.
And then the unthinkable happens. Consider you have not planned anything, you truly have no clue. Then you get conflicting advice, scream from the highest mountaintop, vs no, let’s not panic this person!

Sometimes, I did have to get creative in my empathy teaching, sometimes the person really was not likable, but it really wasn’t about them, it was about my children. Soooo, pick a very happily married couple, that you know personally. suddenly the husband disappears. Use kindness, and judge BM not from a PF perspective.

It is very important for me, to somehow at least get more of us open to the real possibility that BM might be innocent.
We have enough collective brains and insight in this forum to actually sleuth for the truth here and find SM.
We need to at least be open to other POIs. We shut the investigation down on this forum long before LE has. JMHO

I make progress, I continue to sleuth, and the few of us still sleuthing are finding things. Sure is nice to have encouragement from some, and even better to be treated w/ respect here... thank you!

 

[Boxer]

Since one possibility is an abduction and vehicles must pass cameras on 50 going north or south from 225, MOO that footage needed the same immediate scrutiny as the river and roadsides, the home, the camp on 224 and the cement slab in Salida.
MOO absence of reviewing that footage immediately seems to be either a clear signal sheriff had a convincing reason to think she did not get abducted in a vehicle, or it was a big error.

 

[Knox]

They remarked on how often Barry says “we”as opposed to using other pronouns like “I”. If I remember correctly, they thought Barry was using language that distances himself from the situation.

I'm going to re-listen to TD's recording again, but I don't think he ever says Suzanne. My wife and she, but never says her name?

 

[IronOreBetty]

Since I'm saying I don't think the creek is his theory, I guess it's safe to say that I think you haven't heard any theory at all from him, only some ramblings about other people's theories.
Many of you know my good friend was brutally murdered in college. There was no reason at all for it to happen. None. For an uncomfortable amount of time, my young mind simply refused to accept that it had happened. I had all of the functional intelligence of an unplugged Alexa. I don't know how anyone copes with it, with grace. So, I give him more benefit of the doubt that many are willing to extend. I'm trying to listen to the few words he has spoken seeking facts. The puma, the creek, and even the bridge aren't facts................they are somebody's theories.
If you listen really close to what TD was telling us before and after he met BM, theories is exactly what he drove all the way from Arizona for. TD turned it right around, giving us theories that can be discussed endlessly. The only facts I saw in the whole four video set were when BM pointed over in the trees and sad "There's where they found the bike." IMO

I'm oriented toward problem solving- some of us are just wired that way. When something confounds me I think out loud. Maybe X happened to cause Y. Maybe B happened because of A. Maybe if I didn't do *advertiser censored* that would not have happened.

It's just the way my mind goes and the closer I am to the situation, the more I speculate on possibilities. I agree that since his wife seemingly vanished into thin air, and if he truly does not know what happened, he is feeling like he didn't protect her they way he should have. And his brain could be trying to figure out what happened so he can rescue her.

I'm surprised others don't understand that. I don't know if this is classified as denial or bargaining, but it's definitely a natural stage moving toward acceptance of circumstances.

 

[AbigailHobbs]

I'm listening to the podcast Tate talked about yesterday, it's called Profiling Evil and can be found on Youtube. They have a couple episodes on Suzanne. Two retired LE guys who have worked on some fairly large cases.

Here's a point one of them made related to keeping the investigation locked up tight as a drum ... one of the detectives interviewed Wesley Dodd, who had kidnapped a child. The first thing Dodd did after he took the child back to his home was turn on the TV to see if there were any press conferences so he could see what LE was actively doing to find the child. Then went the opposite way with the victim.

Another point made, this one about Suzanne's case. In the TD video. BM, when talking about the mountain lion said, "they dragged her away". BM applies plurality to a mountain lion? He keeps talking about we, them, they. He segregates LE into a different category from the "we" and then puts it into the animal attack. "They dragged her away".

Interesting language, def caught the attention of these two retired detectives.

I think most people would be so horrified by the thought that they couldnt say it out loud. Not to the public. How many people get killed and mauled off with zero evidence left behind? Im gonna go with zero.

 

[AbigailHobbs]

Since one possibility is an abduction and vehicles must pass cameras on 50 going north or south from 225, MOO that footage needed the same immediate scrutiny as the river and roadsides, the home, the camp on 224 and the cement slab in Salida.
MOO absence of reviewing that footage immediately seems to be either a clear signal sheriff had a convincing reason to think she did not get abducted in a vehicle, or it was a big error.

I just watched the TD video again and he says "the girls are gonna come home to spend time you on mothers day so you mind if i go to the job site?"

Then he takes off alone to set up a job site for his workers beginning Monday so it would be all set up.

The girls call the neighbor who calls them and says the car is there the bike is missing. The girls had not been able to reach their mother that day so they were worried.

They call him and they say Im very worried he says me too maybe we should call the police.

But then he doesnt call, the neighbor does? Wouldnt a husband who is a volunteer firefighter call the police? Especially since firefighters (here anyway) handle a lot of 911 calls for injured people and he could give his own friends info on where she normally bikes?

 

[Tate123]

I'm oriented toward problem solving- some of us are just wired that way. When something confounds me I think out loud. Maybe X happened to cause Y. Maybe B happened because of A. Maybe if I didn't do *advertiser censored* that would not have happened
I'm surprised others don't understand that. I don't know if this is classified as denial or bargaining, but it's definitely a natural stage moving toward acceptance of circumstances.

I do understand that and have factored that into what I think of his interview. Mine is not a point of view from one single thing said or done. It is the totality of the circumstances that gives me pause.

 

[vaporlass]

IN. Property & Gdn'ship; Closing the Prop. Sale.
@lamlawindy sbm bbm & rbm Agreeing w your post that BM seeking gdn'ship to complete the IN. prop. sale* does not equal strong $$$ motive for him to harm SM. Seems imo, filing in IN. where prop is located, makes sense, legally & practically. A couple other thoughts about BM's actions.
Part 1.
Q: Why seek Gdn'ship? (Sorry to plow ground if already covered; this is for others, not you @lamlawindy)
Well, if BM had simply said to buyers* ~ nevermind, not selling after all, wife is missing, not closing the sale, or had said ~ you'll get your earnest money/deposit back, he could have faced buyers' lawsuit for specific performance under the contract and could have ended up in court w no plausible legal defense or excuse** for breach of contract, and then could been forced to seek gdn'ship anyway.
Part 2.
Q: Why not just sign SM's name (by BM) on deed to close the sale? Or if BM signs SM's name on deed & doc's at closing, w'out a doc authorizing it, such as Power of Attorney doc or Letter of Guardianship & Order & Letter Appointing Guardian, so what? If Buyers*** do not object, who cares?
Well, the title ins co. 'Commitment for Title Insurance Policy' for Owner & Lender's **** policies is contingent on completion & signatures of doc's at closing. One of those required doc's is the deed w prop owners' proper execution. A deed signed by Person H (purportedly) on behalf of Person W (even if husband & wife), w'out document (such as Power of Atty or ct-issued Letter of Guardianship & Order/Letter Appointing Gdn.) authorizing it is not what a title ins co considers a properly executed deed, esp'ly for a $ X00,000+ property.
Q: Without ^, if title ins co does not issue Owners or Lender's policies so what? Who cares?
Typically the title ins co's local branch/affiliate is responsible for having all -
--- the required doc's w I's dotted & T's crossed;
--- the required signatures***** on those doc's.
Sooo, if title co agency/affiliate makes boo-boo by failing to get all required docs properly executed, the sale transaction does not close, or is at the very least is postponed. That's why BM seeking guardianship and apptmt as guardian made sense to me.
As always, I welcome comment, clarification, or correction, esp'ly from our professionals here, whether atty, real est, or tile ins co. just my 2 cts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warning: Buncha (even more) Tedious Details.
* Assuming IN. property was already "under contract" before SM's May disappearance, i.e., BM & SM as Sellers had already accepted & signed Buyer's offer - the initial sales contract doc's - before SM went missing in May.
** Defenses/excuses for breach or non-performance of contract: unilateral, mutual, or transcription mistake; duress or undue influence; misrepresentation; illegality; etc. AFAIK, none of these would apply.
*** Or Buyers' atty, if they have one. Ime, experienced real est atty defers to title ins. co's requirements.
**** The Lender's or 'Loan Title Insurance Policy' aka mortgagee's policy. It protects the lender's interest in the mortgaged prop in event of foreclosure and is a common req'mt in loans eligible for re-sale to entities such as Fannie Mae, but typically not for 'friends/family' type loans. It is separate from Owner's Title Insurance Policy, which protects new Buyer from title defects. American Land Title Association forms, including Schedule A & Schedule B/Exclusions from coverage, are used thru-out US. Title insurance - Wikipedia
***** Signatures of participants, such as buyers, sellers, title ins co home office, title ins local rep's/affiliates, lender, and in some contracts, real estate agents, atty's, taxing authorities, et al.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Above hypothetical is imo/ime, based on my law/compliance dept. employment w a nationwide financial institution which regularly encountered similar questions; my having completed nearly 30 buy & sales transactions in three different states over a 30 yr period.

The couple who purchased the house had been living in it for at least a year. So, it seems like to me, there was no pressing need or hurry to close this deal. I’m not disagreeing with your information ... I’m just doubting any earnest money was on the line ...
Personally, I think Barry is first and foremost an ambitious businessman who does not allow anything to get in the way of his business deals. I think buying the “other” property in Colorado shows this...
I haven’t been keeping up lately, so maybe I missed some new information? I’m not a professional - I’m just responding based on my research, which could be sorely lacking.

 

[IronOreBetty]

It seems like a sneaky work around whether it's legal or not. I hope that he's not given guardianship permanently. It's kind of an insult to the concept of a will if she is deceased. If she's not, well maybe she's okay with this, but maybe not all other decisions he can make. It seems too easy to get authorization to act on someone's behalf without declaring one way or the other what happened to the legal adult who should be making those questions. And he could be getting clearance while not being declared a POI, but by October he is and then what? It seems to erase the checks and balances of dead/alive or incompetent/competent

Just sounds like something a Carole Baskins would do

However if everything is jointly owned or both names are on accounts, it would default to him as an heir in the event of her death. And vice versa in the event of his death.

 

[Murphy1950]

I just watched the

The girls call the neighbor who calls them and says the car is there the bike is missing. The girls had not been able to reach their mother that day so they were worried.

They call him and they say Im very worried he says me too maybe we should call the police.

I'm hearing this differently (certainly could be wrong here) It sounds and reads to me that the neighbor called Barry, not the girls, and said 'we are a little worried" and Barry says he is too...why down "we" call the police. (So neither the girls or Barry would make that call?) This could go either way...but we d know that ultimately it was the neighbor, that makes me think the "she called me in Denver is the neighbor, not a daughter.

Also if it was a daughter, it seems like you would use their name...(so Macy called me...whatever )

 

[IronOreBetty]

The couple who purchased the house had been living in it for at least a year. So, it seems like to me, there was no pressing need or hurry to close this deal. I’m not disagreeing with your information ... I’m just doubting any earnest money was on the line ...
Personally, I think Barry is first and foremost an ambitious businessman who does not allow anything to get in the way of his business deals. I think buying the “other” property in Colorado shows this...
I haven’t been keeping up lately, so maybe I missed some new information? I’m not a professional - I’m just responding based on my research, which could be sorely lacking.

A contract is the pressing issue. Contracts are binding and the buyers may have needed to close by a specific date to avoid capital gains taxes or to take advantage of the very low interest rates from the COVID fallout.

 

[Feistyomi]

I'm oriented toward problem solving- some of us are just wired that way. When something confounds me I think out loud. Maybe X happened to cause Y. Maybe B happened because of A. Maybe if I didn't do *advertiser censored* that would not have happened.

It's just the way my mind goes and the closer I am to the situation, the more I speculate on possibilities. I agree that since his wife seemingly vanished into thin air, and if he truly does not know what happened, he is feeling like he didn't protect her they way he should have. And his brain could be trying to figure out what happened so he can rescue her.

I'm surprised others don't understand that. I don't know if this is classified as denial or bargaining, but it's definitely a natural stage moving toward acceptance of circumstances.

Wow! So simple, so true! Post of MY day, thank you!

 

[TKG]

I just watched the TD video again and he says "the girls are gonna come home to spend time you on mothers day so you mind if i go to the job site?"

Then he takes off alone to set up a job site for his workers beginning Monday so it would be all set up.

The girls call the neighbor who calls them and says the car is there the bike is missing. The girls had not been able to reach their mother that day so they were worried.

They call him and they say Im very worried he says me too maybe we should call the police.

But then he doesnt call, the neighbor does? Wouldnt a husband who is a volunteer firefighter call the police? Especially since firefighters (here anyway) handle a lot of 911 calls for injured people and he could give his own friends info on where she normally bikes?

ITA ^^

I’ve written this almost exactly several times. Couldn’t he have called one of his FF friends to run over? Connections in the CCFD or LE that he would trust to help him? How could he tell the neighbor he was worried and then ask her to call 911? IMO this is one of the most telling parts of his story.

As if he wanted others to find her missing.