Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #25

[Barry]

Can someone refresh my memory as to when the M's moved to Colorado? Thanks!

 

[GordianKnot]

Can someone refresh my memory as to when the M's moved to Colorado? Thanks!

Source: Missing Suzanne Morphew may have had ‘angst’ about move to Colorado, family friend says [EXCLUSIVE]

SABBM:

According to the source, the Morphew family moved from Indiana to central Colorado in the spring of 2018, after the Morphew’s eldest daughter moved to Colorado for college, and when their younger daughter was still in high school. The source said they believe Suzanne was less enthusiastic about the move than her husband was.

 

[Barry]

Source: Missing Suzanne Morphew may have had ‘angst’ about move to Colorado, family friend says [EXCLUSIVE]

SABBM:

According to the source, the Morphew family moved from Indiana to central Colorado in the spring of 2018, after the Morphew’s eldest daughter moved to Colorado for college, and when their younger daughter was still in high school. The source said they believe Suzanne was less enthusiastic about the move than her husband was.

Thank you!

 

[skyvoyager]

Lazy journal? Nahhhh...
Needing two confirmed sources? Nahh... that's archaic.

two sources archaic? .... correct which is why i said 'in the old days'

 

[skyvoyager]

Welcome to WS, I see you’re somewhat new, like myself.
MOO I actually believe LE did give some info to SM’s family in Indiana.

Your other point about the reporter I feel is very unfair to this particular reporter. She’s busted her butt trying to keep this case in the media! Every missing person should be so lucky to have a Lauren Scharf on their side! LS is consistently professional.

I don't doubt that LE talked to a family member. What was said is the question. As an example PE there were 2 cars in the driveway and neither of the cars belonged to BM. Look how many ways that has been interpreted here. It is human nature.

 

[Dave F.]

A lot of towns around there have odd pronunciations. The nearby town of Buena Vista is pronounced more like “Boon-a Vista” than “Bwena Vista.” At least that‘s what my CO family tells me.

You are close. It's promounced "Beh Yoona Vista" IMO

 

[DizzyB]

two sources archaic? .... correct which is why i said 'in the old days'

I get the two sources for news for confirmation of facts. I don’t believe that anyone involved stated as fact that BM was not where he said he was. They reported that an individual was told that things don’t match up. That’s it.
On the other hand, let’s talk about the bike ride. Was that vetted? Did more than one individual state that Suzanne was on a bike ride?

 

[Hatfield]

....snipped by me for focus....

-that the work trip to Denver where he was clearing property was merely an excuse to haul equipment to Denver (or en route), equipment that he could use to bury a victim at someone else's build site entirely?

JMO
I think this combined with the known facts about the late night disturbance at the Salida job site where the neighbor was woken up and she said she heard loud equipment has become my primary theory on what he did with SM.

I think the neighbor even said she thought she heard something that sounded like someone running. Someone could have been running around that job site if they were in a hurry to load up the equipment.

He may have loaded up something like a Front Loader Tractor that he took away from the Salida job site and then transported it to wherever he used it to dig a very deep hole.

The problem with that theory is all the possible places he may have taken it. Lets hope LE has been able to get his vehicle's location data and maybe they can narrow down possible locations he may have been.

 

[Ontario Mom]

two sources archaic? .... correct which is why i said 'in the old days'

But we're not living in the "old days", we're living in the "these days"

And these days, vloggers, professionally trained journalists, youtubers and former LE are all on board attempting to provide good coverage of these cases we're following.
I think most are doing a pretty decent job.

jmo

 

[303gmf]

You are close. It's promounced "Beh Yoona Vista" IMO

Bewney or BV for short

 

[Fireflize]

RBBM. I think that if the bike was staged, (and IMHO it was), it was placed where it would be out of sight of the casual walker, biker, or car going by, but would be found rather quickly if you are actually searching for it. It was needed to be found to push the narrative, but not noticed before the drama could be played out. MOO

Good point. The bike was not left beside the road, which would seem more likely if she had been abducted. But if it had been left beside the road, then it could have been found by someone driving by at daybreak. But it was probably in plain sight if someone was looking for it. Because the bike had to be found, because someone thought it would prove that Suzanne was still alive on Mother's Day. Moo of course.
Moo

 

[NuttMegg]

But we're not living in the "old days", we're living in the "these days"

And these days, vloggers, professionally trained journalists, youtubers and former LE are all on board attempting to provide good coverage of these cases we're following.
I think most are doing a pretty decent job.

jmo

Given the lies spread all over yt and fb (still 2 years later) about the Watts case, I am happy to find PE, with its calm, responsible approach, LE oriented. I don't think there is any 2 source rule when the info is coming straight from an impacted family.

 

[Lilypad13]

RBBM Yes, @LietKynes. Now you’ve got me thinking again.
And why that lame YT video that hardly anyone would see when he could have spread information about his wife to the world via a press conference with LE?
Because it was too soon?
Why the secrecy?
It just occurred to me that maybe BM knew someone had seen him somewhere he shouldn’t have been or doing something he shouldn’t have been doing during the crucial hours when SM went missing. It was someone he didn’t know, but BM was afraid a memory would be jogged if that person saw him again on tv or in the press. Under pressure he made the YT video so it would look like he was doing something to help find his wife. In reality, it was ineffective. And, except for the TD video, no one has really seen BM publicly since.
Is BM hoping memories will fade over time?
MOO

Interesting thought...you mean say someone saw him doing something down by the river?? Before he made the video.

 

[Lilypad13]

JMO
I think this combined with the known facts about the late night disturbance at the Salida job site where the neighbor was woken up and she said she heard loud equipment has become my primary theory on what he did with SM.

I think the neighbor even said she thought she heard something that sounded like someone running. Someone could have been running around that job site if they were in a hurry to load up the equipment.

He may have loaded up something like a Front Loader Tractor that he took away from the Salida job site and then transported it to wherever he used it to dig a very deep hole.

The problem with that theory is all the possible places he may have taken it. Lets hope LE has been able to get his vehicle's location data and maybe they can narrow down possible locations he may have been.

I think she said it sounded like machinery running. I don’t remember hearing about a person running. She said she looked out her door and it stopped. MRO (my recollection only)

 

[KLM6]

You're right, the are doing a good job. That being said, there is no need to defer to them and automatically accept what they report as "truth" or "fact." Savvy media consumers should sift the information, question approaches/motives, and determine for themselves what weight to give the information provided.

Bbm. Which is exactly what the savvy WS'ers have been doing for years, or more specifically in this case, 25 threads since day 1. Sifting through information and determining for themselves who and what to give weight to. I can tell you honestly, I personally give more weight to LS, an anonymous SM family member, former LE (some of whom we even have here), and even BMs family members, than I do any of BMs stories.

As for motive and/or intention: it is to FIND SUZANNE. Something her husband doesn't seem to care to do. Your argument doesnt follow that intention, but rather to discredit sources helping to find a missing woman. That perplexes me.

 

[Blue Amethyst]

If it wasn't pre planned--I could see a moment in time rage. Strangulation comes to mind. But, it could have been a shove or hard push and she hit her head and died etc.
If so, the "Oh Susanne..." make so much sense to me.

JMO I almost thought he was going to follow the " Oh Suzanne " with "I am so sorry".

If he did hit or shove her in anger, I wish he had just called 911 and fessed up to it.

 

[Hatfield]

You're right, the are doing a good job. That being said, there is no need to defer to them and automatically accept what they report as "truth" or "fact." Savvy media consumers should sift the information, question approaches/motives, and determine for themselves what weight to give the information provided.

I think most would agree and is why we have been discussing that new information so much. With this particular news there are some things that tend to place it in the "most likely accurate information" category.

Some of the main things to me is that Lauren shared similar information and since she is a news reporter, I believe she would be very careful to try to report accurate information.

Also the PE guys are Ex-LE so its a fair chance they have some friends who are still active LE that may have somehow been able to vouche for it.

Another possibility is one of SM's family or friends in Indiana may be in the LE profession and may have contacts. That may seem far fetched but even in the Patrick Frazee case, one of his own direct relatives was in LE.

The bottom line for me with this new news is both the PE guys and Lauren would not want to go on record reporting it unless they felt comfortable it was accurate, so I am leaning that it was accurate information. JMO

 

[lamlawindy]

<rsbm>

Tricia made a thread specific exception in this case to allow Barry to be discussed as a POI as he is obviously being treated publicly as one by LE even though they have not officially categorized him as such. Approval was given to discuss him as a POI based on what is in MSM or by LE (but not to sleuth him). All other family members are still off limits under the WS victim friendly policy because they are obviously NOT being treated publicly as POI/suspects.

WRT, Lauren and the PE hosts, they are under absolutely no obligation to explain to the public how they vet their sources.

I understand the reason for the Barry Morphew exception; there would be very little discussion without it. I also understand why there are rules for protecting family members.

That being said -- as an attorney* -- the insistence of anonymity is troublesome when a serious accusation occurs: there is no penalty if the person is untruthful. As I've stated in previous posts, the lack of anonymity -- and the willingness to risk possible civil or criminal liability -- is one factor (though courts have held that it is an important one) in determining how much weight to give a statement. While there may be valid reasons for the Moorman family member to want anonymity, that very anonymity also can affect the weight to give the statement.

As to Profiling Evil and Lauren Scharf having no obligation to the public regarding vetting of sources: you are correct. While they have the right to not inform the public about their methods of vetting sources, the public also has no obligation to simply take a media organization at its word without questioning certain aspects of the reporting.

* I would ask any poster (this is not directed at you, @sillybilly) who is intending to respond with the trite "This is a message board, not a court," to please refrain from doing so: I'm posting from a criminal law perspective because that's what I do for a living. I understand that not everyone is considering this case from a legal viewpoint. If you do not want to hear a legal viewpoint, kindly keep scrolling .

 

[lamlawindy]

I think most would agree and is why we have been discussing that new information so much. With this particular news there are some things that tend to place it in the "most likely accurate information" category.

Some of the main things to me is that Lauren shared similar information and since she is a news reporter, I believe she would be very careful to try to report accurate information.

Also the PE guys are Ex-LE so its a fair chance they have some friends who are still active LE that may have somehow been able to vouche for it.

Another possibility is one of SM's family or friends in Indiana may be in the LE profession and may have contacts. That may seem far fetched but even in the Patrick Frazee case, one of his own direct relatives was in LE.

The bottom line for me with this new news is both the PE guys and Lauren would not want to go on record reporting it unless they felt comfortable it was accurate, so I am leaning that it was accurate information. JMO

Your reasons are well-thought out and logical. I have no problem with such valid reasoning. What's more, you provided your reasons in a crisp, friendly manner.

I do have a problem -- and you have not done this -- with claims that questioning the motives and processes of media organizations and/or the credibility of anonymous sources is somehow rude or disrespectful. Such questioning can lead to appropriate weight being assigned to their claims.

 

[Barry]

I understand the reason for the Barry Morphew exception; there would be very little discussion without it. I also understand why there are rules for protecting family members.

That being said -- as an attorney* -- the insistence of anonymity is troublesome when a serious accusation occurs: there is no penalty if the person is untruthful. As I've stated in previous posts, the lack of anonymity -- and the willingness to risk possible civil or criminal liability -- is one factor (though courts have held that it is an important one) in determining how much weight to give a statement. While there may be valid reasons for the Moorman family member to want anonymity, that very anonymity also can affect the weight to give the statement.

As to Profiling Evil and Lauren Scharf having no obligation to the public regarding vetting of sources: you are correct. While they have the right to not inform the public about their methods of vetting sources, the public also has no obligation to simply take a media organization at its word without questioning certain aspects of the reporting.

* I would ask any poster (this is not directed at you, @sillybilly) who is intending to respond with the trite "This is a message board, not a court," to please refrain from doing so: I'm posting from a criminal law perspective because that's what I do for a living. I understand that not everyone is considering this case from a legal viewpoint. If you do not want to hear a legal viewpoint, kindly keep scrolling .

Two thoughts:

1: I totally get where you are coming from, and much appreciate the legal input. You're someone I would want on my side, if I ever needed it. People need protection of their rights and due process.

2: I have recently come to the conclusion that this case is a "situation". I think there is a very good reason for people keeping quiet, and not wanting to be identified.

All MOO.