Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #22

[marylamby]

Still catching up this morning so this may have already been addressed - but - I think the only way that could have been legally allowed to air, is because they likely got that information from BM himself, in his alleged non-staged interview with the youtuber TD.
He IS on camera, stating he's been cleared (or however he worded it).
If they'd have done their homework, they'd know the CCSO has in fact not cleared BM.
And maybe they did, but opted to run with BM's version instead, for whatever reason.
Click-bait? Sure, why not? It works.
I see LOTS of sites I used to respect, doing that very thing.

jmo

Could be or, if TD did know that he'd not been cleared, he may have been letting him dig his own grave *ahem*.

 

[MassGuy]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

I have been called a "defender" of Barry Morphew, but I'm not enamored of the guy. I don't know him personally.

That being said, I am bewildered by the fact that so many people suspect him -- and use investigators' actions with respect to him as justification for doing so -- while at the same time seemingly ignore investigators' warning that nobody has been ruled in or out.

Because that warning doesn’t tend to mean a hell of a lot. Letecia Stauch was never called a suspect, and investigators maintained that it was merely a “missing persons investigation.

We saw the same in the Kelsey Berreth case.

We were told that CSI teams being at the house was standard practice, and that we shouldn’t read anything into it.

Not naming a suspect or POI seems to be standard these days.

So their words mean nothing to me, especially when those words deviate from their actions.

Actions that I find to be incredibly telling.

 

[Cindizzi]

Because that warning doesn’t tend to mean a hell of a lot. Letecia Stauch was never called a suspect, and investigators maintained that it was merely a “missing persons investigation.

We saw the same in the Kelsey Berreth case.

We were told that CSI teams being at the house was standard practice, and that we shouldn’t read anything into it.

Not naming a suspect or POI seems to be standard these days.

So their words mean nothing to me, especially when those words deviate from their actions.

Actions that I find to be incredibly telling.

Even the DA visiting the home one month before her arrest did not change LE official stance on the investigation. Remember the only quote Dan May gave reporters was. “ I’m just part of the task force. “

https://twitter.com/koaarobquirk/status/1225171277616381953?s=21

 

[MassGuy]

Even the DA visiting the home one month before her arrest did not change LE official stance on the investigation. Remember the only quote Dan May gave reporters was. “ I’m just part of the task force. “

https://twitter.com/koaarobquirk/status/1225171277616381953?s=21

Yes. I thought that was quite hilarious. Basically, “nothing to see here.”

 

[Seattle1]

Was that the only construction vehicle on site at that time? (I'm impressed with your gathering together of disparate bits of information). It's certainly not an insignificant construction vehicle! Thank you for your research.

^^sbm

I thought the ID video was lazy in posting that mining vehicle. Essentially, someone pulled a stock image of what they thought construction equipment would look like.

I don't recall ever seeing such a large piece of equipment being used on a single residential property. Nor would it make sense for someone with a landscaping business to have a piece of machinery that large.

To be clear, the mining equipment cited by OP is not fact.

More sarcasm aimed at the erroneous Investigation Discovery (ID) 2-minute click-bait video that has since been deleted by ID.

Seriously, if there was in-fact any actual video of the alleged nighttime operation on mother's day weekend from the searched, residential build site, it's pretty unlikely it would be in the possession of ID.

MOO

 

[Janeumayer]

Maybe the Sheriff initially said items because they found her bike plus one other item.
Then again, maybe he misspoke.

I thought that news conference was very good though, which makes me think he meant just what he said.

He was very clear. He did not misspeak. He did say they found several items the day before the press conference, which did not include the bike, plus one more item the day of. But, I can understand if some of those items were then disregarded as not being SM’s after the fact.

 

[Seattle1]

The only narrative which in my mind fits a "too soon" scenario is one in which this was a voluntary disappearance. "It's only been a few days, we had a fight, she might have gone somewhere to cool off, it's too soon to panic, and so forth." The others he's been pushing? Not so much.

^^sbm
I believe the "too soon" comment had to do with too early for the husband to direct a plea to the SM and the alleged captors given how BM made the comment when the nephew was on-air announcing the generous reward match by a family friend for SM's safe return. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

He was very clear. He did not misspeak. He did say they found several items the day before the press conference, which does not include the bike, plus one more item the day of. But, I can understand if some of those items were then disregarded as not being SM’s after the fact.

Yes, I agree. Hwy 50 had been closed for the all-day search and the report was that personal items were found that may belong to SM. Nobody said they recovered SM's property. MOO

 

[Warwick7]

Not saying it is the case here but to address the question generally, I would say if an abduction was thought to be random, a warning would most likely be issued. If an abduction was targeted however, a warning would not likely be issued as there is no threat to the community at large.

I see where you are coming from.
But, even in the Jayme Closs case, she was targeted. And yes they did warn the community and communities.

 

[PaulaDC]

https://twitter.com/LaurenScharfTV/status/1288890899011796992


@DiscoveryID
why did you delete the video of #suzannemorphew and who did you get your information from? #Justice4Suzanne #FindSuzanne
1:35 PM · Jul 30, 2020 from Colorado Springs, CO·Twitter for iPhone

I actually commented on Twitter on it. Someone else called them out so I couldn't help adding to it. I mean le hasn't confirmed it so why would they? Made no sense.

 

[v0x]

Just a friendly reminder to keep things civil. Please no personalizing, bullying, argumentative posts, etc. Please respect your fellow members.

That is all. Carry on.

 

[Leader6518]

Because that warning doesn’t tend to mean a hell of a lot. Letecia Stauch was never called a suspect, and investigators maintained that it was merely a “missing persons investigation.

We saw the same in the Kelsey Berreth case.

We were told that CSI teams being at the house was standard practice, and that we shouldn’t read anything into it.

Not naming a suspect or POI seems to be standard these days.

So their words mean nothing to me, especially when those words deviate from their actions.

Actions that I find to be incredibly telling.

Great points! I would like to add that LE does not want to tip their hand before they are ready. They don't want the suspect knowing they are a suspect. Many of us have been following cases for decades (think OJ) and have learned from watching these cases unfold and go to trial. There are behaviors that raise red flags because they are a common thread in many investigations.

That is not to say it is proof, but experience over the years have led us to see patterns of behaviors that are concerning.

ETA: I should have added the @iamlawindy post you were responding to, MassGuy.

 

[MassGuy]

Great points! I would like to add that LE does not want to tip their hand before they are ready. They don't want the suspect knowing they are a suspect. Many of us have been following cases for decades (think OJ) and have learned from watching these cases unfold and go to trial. There are behaviors that raise red flags because they are a common thread in many investigations.

That is not to say it is proof, but experience over the years have led us to see patterns of behaviors that are concerning.

ETA: I should have added the @iamlawindy post you were responding to, MassGuy.

Exactly. It isn’t proof, as we don’t know what evidence law enforcement has that is causing them to behave this way.

But if we believe the CBI and FBI know what they are doing, which I do, then I think what we are seeing means something:

They are looking at Barry, and for good reason.

 

[Seattle1]

Not naming a suspect or POI seems to be standard these days.

So their words mean nothing to me, especially when those words deviate from their actions.

^^sbbm

Very true and not without reason. Federal agencies no longer do it. Good read at link re. the origins of POI label.

In a trap: What it means to be a 'person of interest' | In the Dark | APM Reports

Sept 27, 2016

"Person of interest" is a term widely used by the police, but it's relatively new, having emerged in the mid-1990s. In most cases, it appears to be a euphemism for "suspect," with enough vagueness thrown in to temper expectations and afford legal protection. "The beauty is that nobody knows what it means and that it has no definition," said Paul Rothstein, a professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. "It covers a multifarious group of situations and therefore no one can say that it means this person is a suspect, because they aren't yet. Because there isn't enough information.

"It's a way for police and prosecutors to disguise that they really have some grounds to suspect that a person played some role in a crime," he said. "But they don't feel they have enough evidence that they want to essentially perhaps defame the person by suggesting to the public that this person has committed a crime or is a full suspect in a crime."

It seems clear, though, that the term is intended to cast aspersions, said Donna Shaw, a professor of journalism at the College of New Jersey and a former reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer. "There are legal definitions for other terms like, 'suspect,' 'material witness,' 'subject,' 'target,' but 'person of interest,' according to the people I talk to in law enforcement, was left deliberately up in the air as a catch-all for a couple of reasons," she said. "One, so police and federal agents could tell reporters, 'Well, we have a person of interest.' So it kind of gets the reporters off their backs, like, 'Ooh, they're making progress on the case!' But the other thing, which probably (is) a little more bothersome, is that it's a way for them to talk to people who might become suspects, or perhaps are already suspects, without them being Mirandized. And that's the part that really could be troubling, if you're telling somebody, 'Oh, well, you're not a suspect, you're a person of interest.'"

The term apparently arose after the case of Richard Jewell, the security guard who found a backpack containing a bomb on the grounds of the 1996 summer Olympics in Atlanta. He alerted the police and helped evacuate people before the bomb exploded. At first hailed a hero, Jewell came to be regarded as a suspect. The FBI publicly searched his home and he was essentially convicted in the media, who attacked him, he said, like "piranha on a bleeding cow." His life was upended before he was eventually cleared. Jewell won lawsuits against various media organizations, and the attorney general at the time, Janet Reno, formally apologized. bbm

 

[Love Never Fails]

He was very clear. He did not misspeak. He did say they found several items the day before the press conference, which did not include the bike, plus one more item the day of. But, I can understand if some of those items were then disregarded as not being SM’s after the fact.

Yes I realize. I have confidence in the sheriff as I said.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

No it's not an "official" working day, but when someone is contracted to do a job (like BM was) and there's a timeline and schedule and other people starting their work depends on you getting your part of the work completed first, and the schedule slips, time has to be made up to keep the project on schedule. It requires being flexible to meet the scheduling requirements and working even on days when it's not an "official working day." It happens in construction, and it happens in other industries too.

IMO

Then the residents around the construction site obviously have no rights to be spared from noise and dirt on a Sunday, aha. I didn't know.

 

[Janeumayer]

Yes I realize. I have confidence in the sheriff as I said.

Forgot to add that I also agreed with you but wanted to clarify Spezze’s comments. :hug:

 

[TIGER0822]

I am still on the fence about this one. She initially thought it was a truck engine running. Many people fit the story to the crime for a bit of attention, or a for a bit of excitement.
I find it somewhat odd that she said she saw a man and a woman without elaborating. Most people would have said where they saw them, they were on the machinery, or walking away from the site, or near a car. She heard something. Was it really for half an hour? Was it a truck idling or machinery? Why the lack of details about the man and the woman she saw, were they tall or short? I am on the fence and l am leaning towards she heard something and her account had a bit of embellishment as it happened the night before her disappearance and local gossip would have it that BM worked on the site.

I most certainly agree with points 1 and 3. I’m not sold on BM knowing he was being recorded, but he was certainly counting on TD to tell/sell his “story/stories” in the same fashion as he has used his nephew, SM’s cousin and his good friend TS to further direct attention away from himself.

Spoiler

It isn’t working well for him

I thought about if he knew whether he was being recorded. He noticed the recording device and asked TD to put it away. If he did not want to be recorded he would have argued and walked away. MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

Minor point, and I may have missed it, but I don't recall it being said specifically that his truck and cell phone were "seized", only that LE had them. Just paints a different picture when perhaps he turned them over willingly.

Not sure what colour his truck is but in the photo where BM is seen possibly tying his shoe (?) he is beside a black truck. In the TD video interview with BM, he was driving a black truck. Just pointing out that he has access to a vehicle, whether his own truck was returned to him, or possibly a loaner or rental.

I agree, "seized" means something different than, "he handed them over willingly".
But I didn't find an article that said that.
This Daily Mail one says "Police also have his car and his cell phone – leaving the businessman and volunteer firefighter to communicate through his close friend George Davis, 33."

There is another one that says "seized" but I'm not sure it's MSM or approved so, there's that.

That part was right after "But DailyMail.com can now reveal that her husband has not been allowed to enter the home he shared with Suzanne since he returned from his trip to Denver." So in context, the way it read to me was a continuous thought, that they took them, the same way they took the house and kept it as long as they needed it.

I can't really say about the trucks in the pic.
I guess one of them could be his buddy Davis mentioned in the article.

jmo

 

[Barry]

Then the residents around the construction site obviously have no rights to be spared from noise and dirt on a Sunday, aha. I didn't know.

We don’t have the day of silence here. Some people try to respect Sunday as that, but it’s not uncommon for people to mow, or make other types of noise on Sunday.