Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #21

[JnRyan]

People magazine just published this article about Suzanne.

Friends Say Missing Colo. Mom Suzanne Morphew and Husband Barry Seemed Like ‘Good, Model Family’

ETA: It quotes another "friend" basically saying they were the perfect family. Also that BM was the provider and SM was the homemaker. Otherwise the article seems hastily thrown together without much thought or research into the case.

I'm on the fence as to whether or not BM had anything to with Suzanne's disappearance. I read this article and I think back to the old Wendy's commercial, "Where's the beef?!?!?" But it looks like you have a similar thought in your last sentence.

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

I understand where you’re coming from with the rumours, but I’m telling ya, our neighbour has given us the inside scoop on dirt on this street . And, it was absolutely true and both houses went up for sale!

I think there’s a place for guys or gals like TD. He’s a grade above a few others out there. Unlike LS, who is professional and manicured and answers to her bosses, TD can fly by the seat of his pants wherever and whenever he likes. I look forward to his “scoop” every bit as much as LS’s.

I agree! If not for Tyson, we would have nothing of Barry talking about the circumstances of Suzanne’s disappearance; well, aside from the 26 second scripted video, which I don’t really count.

I’m thankful for his efforts, however underhanded they may be.

IMO

 

[Ssschu]

I'm on the fence as to whether or not BM had anything to with Suzanne's disappearance. I read this article and I think back to the old Wendy's commercial, "Where's the beef?!?!?" But it looks like you have a similar thought in your last sentence.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yes, exactly! Where's the beef?!? That's an amazing reference, btw.

 

[marylamby]

These are my odds :
99 % probability that BM is solely responsible for SM’s disappearance
1% probability of some other wild scenario
BUT,
unfortunately, I would still suspect BM involvement.
I just cannot get past his demeanour in his plea, lack of a meaningful reward when clearly he has money, not answering the simplest of questions when asked and conveniently being 3 hrs away on MD. Why couldn’t he get the job site in Denver ready on Saturday? What was he doing Saturday? Was he on his previous job site? Did he spend the day with Suzanne and if so, what were they doing?

I will not give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s done nothing deserving of it.

"I will not give him the benefit of the doubt. He's done nothing deserving of it."
This is exactly how I feel.

 

[gitana1]

And nothing about any of that indicates the LE is solely focused on the spouse of the missing person...that is your belief and it has not been verified. There are numerous scenarios that could have lead LE to respond how they did. Also the execution of a SW is not evidence in and off itself. A SW is meaningless if it does not produce evidence or proceeds of a crime.

Despite all the efforts by LE no arrests have been made, no suspects have been named and really no indication of what happened and when it happened has been presented.

Thus when a poster says she thinks the spouse of the missing person is innocent, they should not have to explain much more than there is no evidence indicating guilt at this time. <modsnip>

Oh I disagree.

I don't think LE was solely focused on the husband right away, but they quickly turned their focus on him like a laser beam.

The fact that they went BACK to the house and searched the property a second time, is very noteworthy. We have seen that in the Stauch case and the Berreth case.

And excavating? Using ground penetrating sonar? That's a big deal.

Finally, absence of evidence is sometimes evidence in and of itself. We have seen nothing unconnected to BM, searched except the roadway and trail in the day or two after SM went missing. Instead, they went back to BM's house. A second time.

Remember, this isn't a court of law where a person is innocent until the state proves they're guilty. We can use common sense here, to start forming opinions or suspicions. We can discuss what we believe or think and why and it's not invalid because the potential defendant hasn't been determined to be guilty. And since it is a discussion board, reasons why someone feels a certain way are pretty relevant.

Of course no one has to defend a position if they don't feel like it.

 

[10ofRods]

excellent points - I've often found that when following a case on WS when you have opposing positions (some think X did it, and some think X is innocent - think Frazee, Watts, etc.) it seems "hate" creeps into the conversation as a way to describe the opposing view - in this case - the husband - for me, I don't hate - I just don't like what I think they may have done. It may come across that I "hate" the particular person in a case but I don't. if that makes any sense.
JMO

I think "hate" is a projection by people who think people who disagree actually "hate" each other. Or that people who think someone appears to be suspicious means that I (suspicious person) hate that person. It's a way of ascribing a pretty poor character trait to the opposition.

I've worked in mental hospitals and jails, following people all the way from trial to conviction to...prison or mental hospital. I don't hate any of these people. I am still mostly just amazed and still confused by the course of life of the one person I had most contact with - he's a serial rapist and is in prison for a long time. But I never hated him. Astonishment and pity (long story in his case), but no hate. I don't hate BM either.

But I sure do not feel warmth and positive regard for him, either. That's not unusual for me. I would be able to tolerate a man like BM on the periphery of my public life, but he's not the kind of person I could ever befriend. If he were my best friend's husband, I'd manage a polite relationship and laugh at his jokes, but I probably wouldn't be tolerated well (I'm too outspoken).

I have many small observations, all of which are open to interpretation, but which together give me that viewpoint.

 

[oviedo]

I think "hate" is a projection by people who think people who disagree actually "hate" each other. Or that people who think someone appears to be suspicious means that I (suspicious person) hate that person. It's a way of ascribing a pretty poor character trait to the opposition.

I've worked in mental hospitals and jails, following people all the way from trial to conviction to...prison or mental hospital. I don't hate any of these people. I am still mostly just amazed and still confused by the course of life of the one person I had most contact with - he's a serial rapist and is in prison for a long time. But I never hated him. Astonishment and pity (long story in his case), but no hate. I don't hate BM either.

But I sure do not feel warmth and positive regard for him, either. That's not unusual for me. I would be able to tolerate a man like BM on the periphery of my public life, but he's not the kind of person I could ever befriend. If he were my best friend's husband, I'd manage a polite relationship and laugh at his jokes, but I probably wouldn't be tolerated well (I'm too outspoken).

I have many small observations, all of which are open to interpretation, but which together give me that viewpoint.

You are such a blessing to this thread and I’ve tagged you in a thread where they say they can’t get DNA from remains - I’ve never heard this and was curious if you had any thoughts ?
ETA link
MO - MO - Marina Bischoff, 39, Kansas City, 28 May 2020

 

[Seattle1]

It's an unspoken rule of most marriages that when it comes to things like cancer, you stick it out and tough it out and repair what ever needed to be repairing in the relationship to get that done. My dad stood by my mom through 4 different kinds of cancer, starting in 1966 and ending with her death in 2006. He was a bit exceptional, truly, but over the years we naturally watched many other couples and friends deal with cancer. Most people step up to the plate and do their best to be supportive, even if the marriage is otherwise moribund.

^^sbm

Agree with the unspoken rule of most marriages-- if only under the echoes of in sickness and in health.

I think another part of the unspoken rule when cancer hits a spouse is stepping up for your children. If a big brute can't stomach the idea of sitting with their spouse while a bag of toxins empties into their bloodstream, how easy can it be for a minor child and her young adult sister to also sit and try to bring comfort while scared to death.

Nope, your don't take a pass. You put your big boy pants on and step up for your children when their mother is suffering.

When momma hurts, everybody hurts.

MOO

 

[10ofRods]

That comment is utterly damning in my eyes.

"It's too soon," is something a person says when they're trying to buy themselves time.

Time is not your friend when someone goes missing.

Who in the world tries to buy more time when they find themselves in a situation where every second counts?

There is no rational explanation, and no justification, for BM not jumping at the opportunity to implore the public to BOLO for his beloved wife of >25 years.

At least, no innocent rational explanation.

JMO.

Not that I disagree with you, but I thought I'd do my absolute best to defend BM here (seeing as how no one else is doing so, and the fact that people who say they think he's not suspicious have not responded to this question...and it's been several threads).

There is a type of person who, when tragedy befalls, goes into a turtle like shell of denial. This type of person is usually the type of person who not only exerts a great deal of control over their day-t0-day life in ordinary circumstances (as most entrepreneurs do as well as many others) but they also have a mental to-do list and regimen that is miles long and often, not negotiable.

They handle bad times not by sitting at someone's bedside (can't, must flit around, burn off nervous energy) but by doing more of whatever they already did. I've seen a woman go home and fix a bunch of pancakes for a husband that was dying in the hospital - not only was he not returning, but even if he had - she'd have had to do a different batch. I watched her throw them in the trash and I thought she would cry, but she just acted busy cleaning up the kitchen and did not speak of it. When asked what she was doing, she said, "Fixing pancakes for Jack." So we all knew not to disturb that part of her that was functioning that way.

Let's say BM is such a person. Just can't deal. Won't deal. Has never had to deal with death, illness, disappearance of wives. Has only had to deal with landscaping, business contacts, making contacts and building networks and finding one more "job" after another (maybe including real estate speculation etc).

So that's what he does now. Like many small time contractors who are trying to make it into the big time (Indiana state capital, big projects) and are now in a small town, small business environment, he needs extra things to do on a good day (volunteer fire department, hunting, improving his own property, servicing various cars and vehicles, gym).

When a tragedy occurs, he doubles down and just does more of the above, completely oblivious to how it looks to others.

How'd I do? I realize this still paints BM as a person incapable of strong empathy, of coordinated directed action, of sentimental gestures. He eventually got past the "too soon" remark to record and edit (IMO) a brief youtube video, and then fell silent.

I look at what I just wrote and think, if a man is so vigorous and outwardly competitive/social - how is it that he's not finding a way (personally) to keep Suzanne front and center. Why has he not explored each of his various theories about her disappearance to the best of his ability? (He could use a spokesperson, obviously several people would have been glad to help out).

I did try to depict him as a "normal person" whose grief reaction is...just to double down on how they lived life before.

 

[susiQ]

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yes, exactly! Where's the beef?!? That's an amazing reference, btw.

I can’t see the beef, but I can smell it MOO

 

[Madeleine74]

Exactly. Most people don’t think he’s responsible because they hate him, rather, they dislike him because they think he’s responsible.

Personally, I feel nothing. But that doesn’t mean I won’t criticize the fact that he hasn’t done a damn thing that matters in regards to helping find Suzanne.

Some want the spectacle, the accoutrements and game of a scared spouse looking for his wife, putting up posters, being on the media circuit every day, etc.

IF a spouse has killed their partner, I don't want any of their B.S. or any of their pretend emotions or their parade or any of it. I got a mountain of that with Scott Peterson and many, many other killer spouses. I say, "oh please, spare us the lies."

Here's the one thing that matters if you killed your spouse: your crime is discovered and dealt with. Take yourself to LE, confess what you've done, and lead LE to your partner's remains so they can be recovered, brought home, and given a dignified resolution to something horrible.

THAT'S what matters when you're the reason for someone's disappearance and not being found. Save your beloved children from not knowing and constant worry, save your family members, save your friends, save your jurisdiction from wasting any resources, manpower, equipment. Be brave in the way that really matters if you've done wrong, stand up, own it, and don't play the games. That's what someone with integrity does -- when they do wrong, they admit it.

And if you won't do that, then get ready because LE will not give up, will not believe your b.s., and the truth will be discovered.

IMO

 

[MassGuy]

Some want the spectacle, the accoutrements and game of a scared spouse looking for his wife, putting up posters, being on the media circuit every day, etc.

IF a spouse has killed their partner, I don't want any of their B.S. or any of their pretend emotions or their parade or any of it. I got a mountain of that with Scott Peterson and many, many other killer spouses. I say, "oh please, spare us."

Here's the one thing that matters if you killed your spouse: take yourself to LE, confess what you've done, and lead LE to your partner's remains so they can be recovered, brought home, and given a dignified resolution to something horrible. THAT'S what matters when you're the reason for someone's disappearance and not being found. Save your beloved children from not knowing and constant worry, save your family members, save your friends, save your jurisdiction from wasting any resources, manpower, equipment. Be brave in the way that really matters; if you've done wrong, stand up, own it, and don't play the games. That's what someone with integrity does -- when they do wrong, they admit it.

IMO

I don’t expect him to do these things for obvious reasons.

My point is that it’s not only highly unusual that he never did those things, but that it’s incredibly incriminating (on top of the rest of it).

You’re either a horrible person, or a killer in addition. I don’t see it any other way.

 

[JnRyan]

Not that I disagree with you, but I thought I'd do my absolute best to defend BM here (seeing as how no one else is doing so, and the fact that people who say they think he's not suspicious have not responded to this question...and it's been several threads).

There is a type of person who, when tragedy befalls, goes into a turtle like shell of denial. This type of person is usually the type of person who not only exerts a great deal of control over their day-t0-day life in ordinary circumstances (as most entrepreneurs do as well as many others) but they also have a mental to-do list and regimen that is miles long and often, not negotiable.

They handle bad times not by sitting at someone's bedside (can't, must flit around, burn off nervous energy) but by doing more of whatever they already did. I've seen a woman go home and fix a bunch of pancakes for a husband that was dying in the hospital - not only was he not returning, but even if he had - she'd have had to do a different batch. I watched her throw them in the trash and I thought she would cry, but she just acted busy cleaning up the kitchen and did not speak of it. When asked what she was doing, she said, "Fixing pancakes for Jack." So we all knew not to disturb that part of her that was functioning that way.

Let's say BM is such a person. Just can't deal. Won't deal. Has never had to deal with death, illness, disappearance of wives. Has only had to deal with landscaping, business contacts, making contacts and building networks and finding one more "job" after another (maybe including real estate speculation etc).

So that's what he does now. Like many small time contractors who are trying to make it into the big time (Indiana state capital, big projects) and are now in a small town, small business environment, he needs extra things to do on a good day (volunteer fire department, hunting, improving his own property, servicing various cars and vehicles, gym).

When a tragedy occurs, he doubles down and just does more of the above, completely oblivious to how it looks to others.

How'd I do? I realize this still paints BM as a person incapable of strong empathy, of coordinated directed action, of sentimental gestures. He eventually got past the "too soon" remark to record and edit (IMO) a brief youtube video, and then fell silent.

I look at what I just wrote and think, if a man is so vigorous and outwardly competitive/social - how is it that he's not finding a way (personally) to keep Suzanne front and center. Why has he not explored each of his various theories about her disappearance to the best of his ability? (He could use a spokesperson, obviously several people would have been glad to help out).

I did try to depict him as a "normal person" whose grief reaction is...just to double down on how they lived life before.

How did you do? Obviously much better than me at trying to make a case for BM and I'm still on the fence.

 

[TKG]

Not that I disagree with you, but I thought I'd do my absolute best to defend BM here (seeing as how no one else is doing so, and the fact that people who say they think he's not suspicious have not responded to this question...and it's been several threads).

There is a type of person who, when tragedy befalls, goes into a turtle like shell of denial. This type of person is usually the type of person who not only exerts a great deal of control over their day-t0-day life in ordinary circumstances (as most entrepreneurs do as well as many others) but they also have a mental to-do list and regimen that is miles long and often, not negotiable.

They handle bad times not by sitting at someone's bedside (can't, must flit around, burn off nervous energy) but by doing more of whatever they already did. I've seen a woman go home and fix a bunch of pancakes for a husband that was dying in the hospital - not only was he not returning, but even if he had - she'd have had to do a different batch. I watched her throw them in the trash and I thought she would cry, but she just acted busy cleaning up the kitchen and did not speak of it. When asked what she was doing, she said, "Fixing pancakes for Jack." So we all knew not to disturb that part of her that was functioning that way.

Let's say BM is such a person. Just can't deal. Won't deal. Has never had to deal with death, illness, disappearance of wives. Has only had to deal with landscaping, business contacts, making contacts and building networks and finding one more "job" after another (maybe including real estate speculation etc).

So that's what he does now. Like many small time contractors who are trying to make it into the big time (Indiana state capital, big projects) and are now in a small town, small business environment, he needs extra things to do on a good day (volunteer fire department, hunting, improving his own property, servicing various cars and vehicles, gym).

When a tragedy occurs, he doubles down and just does more of the above, completely oblivious to how it looks to others.

How'd I do? I realize this still paints BM as a person incapable of strong empathy, of coordinated directed action, of sentimental gestures. He eventually got past the "too soon" remark to record and edit (IMO) a brief youtube video, and then fell silent.

I look at what I just wrote and think, if a man is so vigorous and outwardly competitive/social - how is it that he's not finding a way (personally) to keep Suzanne front and center. Why has he not explored each of his various theories about her disappearance to the best of his ability? (He could use a spokesperson, obviously several people would have been glad to help out).

I did try to depict him as a "normal person" whose grief reaction is...just to double down on how they lived life before.

So well written, thank you.

 

[Cassady]

Yup. We have multiple case where everything seemed great - no DV, no child abuse. Nothing. And then there's murder:

1. Jason Young
2. Scott Peterson
3. Patrick Frazee
4. Justin Ross Harris
5. Martin MacNeill
6. Chris Coleman
7. Chris Watts
8. Neil Entwhistle
9. John List
10. Mark Hacking
11. Jeffrey McDonald
12. Christian Longo

I can go on and on with cases of seemingly happy families when suddenly, dad/husband commits murder.

In DV cases, it is not about whether the missing person had a "perfect family" life or not. IMO the important patterns or behaviors to look for in DV murder cases are listed below by the OP, as detailed by Monckton Smith:

One reason CDC studies spousal homicide and violence is that it's related to mental illness. In fact, there are DSM categories that correlate with both perps and victims. Mental illness is real, it has biological substrates, it is not easy to recognize or treat.

Victims, likewise, often exhibit biophysical symptoms (such as depression or anxiety). CDC also studies things like how many people take anxiolytics, their sex, their age, their marital status, etc.

It's interesting that the number of couples co-habiting and not married is increasing, in general. I'm glad the article noted pregnancy as a risk factor (which is another reason for CDC to study this all too common pattern). Is there something biological that triggers aggression in males, when partners are pregnant? Heck, it's sounding like lions or grizzly bears, there. Maybe it's the same reason - the females are preoccupied and put the baby/babies first, pretty much go their own way without much need for The Male. Of course, lion and bear fathers are way less likely to harm a female, as the females are more than capable of fighting back and inflicting damage.

Thanks for posting the Monckton Smith reference, here's the list from her work:

The eight steps she discovered in almost all of the 372 killings she studied were:

• A pre-relationship history of stalking or abuse by the perpetrator
• The romance developing quickly into a serious relationship
• The relationship becoming dominated by coercive control
• A trigger to threaten the perpetrator's control - for example, the relationship ends or the perpetrator gets into financial difficulty
• Escalation - an increase in the intensity or frequency of the partner's control tactics, such as by stalking or threatening suicide
• The perpetrator has a change in thinking - choosing to move on, either through revenge or by homicide
• Planning - the perpetrator might buy weapons or seek opportunities to get the victim alone
• Homicide - the perpetrator kills his or her partner, and possibly hurts others such as the victim's children

 

[Seattle1]

Bold by OP ;-)
Interestingly, if you follow the timeline it went the opposite way - from a criminal investigation to a missing person case. While this could be telling, IMO this is further evidence of LE's inexact phrasing. This would be at least the third example of such. That said, I think its only fair to note that others have made the point that, basically, she is missing until the reason for her going missing is known (and LE wants to tell us).

The NY Post link above is dated 05/14 and uses the phrase "open criminal investigation" stemming from a press conference.

Press releases have used the "missing person" language. Here are examples dated after the NY Post article.

CCSO press release 05/17: "As the investigation into the [SM] missing person case moves forward..."
May 17 Search Press Release - Chaffee County Sheriff

CCSO press release on 05/20: "Additionally, while [SM's] case remains categorized as a missing person..."
May 20, 2020 Press Release Suzanne Morphew missing person case - Chaffee County Sheriff

CCSO press release on 05/21: "...continue the missing person search for [SM]."
May 21, Investigation continues for missing woman - Chaffee County Sheriff

CCSO press release on 05/22: "Based on information developed during the [SM] missing person case..."
May 22 Press Release - Chaffee County Sheriff

CCSO press releases on 06/10 and 07/09 use the exact same language: "The Chaffee County Sheriff’s Office is being assisted by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in this missing person case."
Suzanne Morphew update June 10 - Chaffee County Sheriff
Suzanne Morphew still missing - Chaffee County Sheriff

Every official statement from the Chaffee County Sheriff's office has characterized SM a missing person investigation. I have to disagree that The NY Post used the phrase "open criminal investigation" stemming from a press conference. I believe that entire piece was taken mainly from the Denver Post-- with a twist of a few words for clickbait.

There was not a presser until May 15, and this is where the Sheriff was forced to calm the nerves of the media after NY Post statement that the Sheriff declined to comment on whether the husband was cooperating had become the equivalent to BM not cooperating.

At the presser on 5/15 -- reporters couldn't wait to ask if BM was cooperating to which we got the infamous response from the Sheriff that BM was cooperating, and they hoped he would continue to do so.

MOO

 

[Murphy1950]

You are such a blessing to this thread and I’ve tagged you in a thread where they say they can’t get DNA from remains - I’ve never heard this and was curious if you had any thoughts ?
ETA link
MO - MO - Marina Bischoff, 39, Kansas City, 28 May 2020

Interesting Oviedo...I have the same impression, it appears that issue caused some delay in a recent Gannon case hearing in early JUNE. Apparently they finally matched his jawbone. The family is just picking him up today from Florida.

 

[Itsapuzzle]

ugh. i can't see it from that link, either. i've searched twitter, fb, youtube, and straight up google, and if you are in europe, which i am, you cannot view this video, even with a vpn. that's frustrating, so thanks to the poster who transcribed the video! hopefully someone following the case will make a youtube post and play it within their video. we peeps in europe are invested in this thing, too!

eta: fox21 even has a youtube channel and they posted a few hours ago about a lightning strike! but not the suzanne morphew case? c'mon, fox21! this is why i appreciate TD's videos, and him getting ahead of things. i can't stand all the msm teasing. give us a break over here if you're reading @Lauren!

It's on youtube now @swedeheart and @Poedelini, hope you can view it

ETA: Good on ya Lauren, so wonderful.

 

[Feistyomi]

Respectfully, in the TD video, BM said that searches were conducted up the hill, in the event a lion had taken her. He seemed pretty comfortable that, since they found no evidence, SM wasn’t attacked/mauled by a cat. Does anyone have any evidence that BM still believes it’s a cat? If not, we can probably retire the cat as one of his theories. MOO

In the theory i am considering now, it actually might be considered worse than losing your life to a mountain lion. It would be likely that SMs immediate family would have lost most of their hope, fairly soon after her disappearance. The seemingly half hearted banners, etc ARE just going thru the motions. The family is in the limbo state, moving from denial to acceptance, difficult to do without the body. Consider the possibility, they KNOW who did this.
They are trying to be patient and let LE make the case, and THEY are actually hoping they Are wrong.
Based on our knowledge of SM, it’s extremely hard for me to accept this scenario, but we actually discussed this earlier, unknowingly.

 

[10ofRods]

You are such a blessing to this thread and I’ve tagged you in a thread where they say they can’t get DNA from remains - I’ve never heard this and was curious if you had any thoughts ?
ETA link
MO - MO - Marina Bischoff, 39, Kansas City, 28 May 2020

I went and gave my opinion - as it turns out, I got into reading about extraction of really old DNA and consistently, today's scientists are able to get all manner of identifying material out of what's left of a tooth (after 13,000 years and certainly after 9000 years - but also...sometimes...80,000 years!)

Not all localities have this kind of tech on hand, but if a LE agency is determined, they can get much information. One exception is totally burned-to-ash in hot fire materials (I didn't read the other thread thoroughly). That's very rare - most cremations don't count - but the Paradise Fire in California left people whose remains were not identified specifically.