Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #26

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ohhh @EggSalad good points about the bike! Perhaps the buddy that shows up right at the scene, right at the moment LE finds the bike, well, maybe the buddy has ESP or special training from his 400 tours that indicates to him that the bike is evidence and not just someone who was on a bike ride and was injured/incapacitated/knocked off and they can't find her now. Jumping to HUGE conclusions that the bike is evidence right out of the gate? Hmmm.

MOO
 
IMO, his doing the interview now and at this time, was an attempt to establish a narrative. This seems to be his MO, and maybe this has worked well for him at the family and friend level for many years. It's certainly not scaling up to this situation though. MOO.
 
On reflection, I'm beginning to think that maybe the way that Barry did this "interview" isn't too bad of a tactical decision, though strategically I still would've advised against any statement whatsoever.

Hypothetically, if Barry is tried for harm to Suzanne, anything he may have said to Lauren is a statement by a party-opponent, not hearsay, and so is admissible. However, Colorado has a robust media shield law, the Colorado Press Shield Law, C.R.S. § 13-90-119. Lauren could invoke that shield to quash any subpoena, and likely would, as reporters do not want to earn a reputation for giving up sources.

Any recording played on the air of Barry could be used against Barry. However, because the recording did not air, any recording in Lauren's possession also is subject to the Colorado Press Shield Law.

On balance, I still would advise a client to say nothing. If the client was hell-bent on saying something to the media, then the way this played out at least minimized the threat.
 
I wonder if Andy is the brother that went out to CO after Suzanne was reported missing. I found his interview with PE very telling. I don’t think his name is on the list of people that the Gimme Fund is paying expenses for if they aid in Barry’s private search. I hope that someone is asking about the guardianship.
 
On reflection, I'm beginning to think that maybe the way that Barry did this "interview" isn't too bad of a tactical decision, though strategically I still would've advised against any statement whatsoever.

Hypothetically, if Barry is tried for harm to Suzanne, anything he may have said to Lauren is a statement by a party-opponent, not hearsay, and so is admissible. However, Colorado has a robust media shield law, the Colorado Press Shield Law, C.R.S. § 13-90-119. Lauren could invoke that shield to quash any subpoena, and likely would, as reporters do not want to earn a reputation for giving up sources.

Any recording played on the air of Barry could be used against Barry. However, because the recording did not air, any recording in Lauren's possession also is subject to the Colorado Press Shield Law.

On balance, I still would advise a client to say nothing. If the client was hell-bent on saying something to the media, then the way this played out at least minimized the threat.
I agree on tactically. Definitely bad strategically. It tips his hand on defense, and a mighty weak hand at that. MOO.
 
SM’s Dad said “we more or less lost a lot of contact with her when she moved out there .” Talking about her move to Colorado 2 years ago.
Lost a lot of contact is interesting. A few states away makes some challenges for face to face contact, but was there limited phone/FaceTime? Did BM have anything to do with the limited contact??
 
“My buddy was there right after that, and he said that they completely destroyed the evidence, and he tried to stop them, but they wouldn’t listen to him and said, ‘this is not CSI,'” Barry said. “There’s no evidence for the investigators to see because the Sheriff’s Department completely obliterated it.”

i wonder why BM's little buddy fought so hard to protect the scene? at that time, since it was before barry even got back from denver, surely they had not jumped to the conclusion that a lion/ abductor/ accident- spot was a crime scene. why would they think that so early on?

Exactly.

JMO
First off, how and why was the friend even there so quickly?
Afterall, it sounds like BM had not even gotten there yet so the only people that knew SM was missing should have been the neighbor, the children, BM, and LE. So how and why was this friend there so quickly? IMO, obviously because he was called by someone and most likely BM.

Secondly, what are the odds this friend happened to be in the same location at the precise time LE found the bicycle?

It almost sounds like the friend could have been the one who found the bike.

If so, then did the person that asked him to help look for SM give so many good clues on where to look that it brought him to that exact spot?

And the kicker is lets say you were a close friend of someone and you just learned hours ago that your friend's wife was missing and so you go over there to try to help find her. And lo and behold you find her bicycle. Then why would you immediately jump to the conclusion that evidence needs protecting and there is evidence all over the bike?

Heck at that moment in time, I would still expect her to be found!
I would think she wrecked and walked away from the bicycle and is not far from there. Trying to stop LE from touching the bike would be the furthest thing from my mind at that exact moment in time. I would start looking for her right around the bike area and work outwards thinking she wrecked and got hurt and walked away from there.

Sure, a day or so later when she is still missing is when all that becomes important to me as a friend that got called over there to help see if I could help find her. .
But not in the couple hours from when I was just notified she was missing and if I had went over to help look for her and found her wrecked bike. I would immediately think a normal bike wreck and she walked off.
 
I wonder if he said 3, then corrected himself to say 30? (Thirty sounds a bit like embellishment.) Also interesting is his word choice - "testimony" - as he wasn't under oath.
I thought he meant 3 10 hour interviews = 30, but can they keep him in there 10 hours at a time?

Also don't believe he wasn't asked to take a polygraph.
 
Ohhh @EggSalad good points about the bike! Perhaps the buddy that shows up right at the scene, right at the moment LE finds the bike, well, maybe the buddy has ESP or special training from his 400 tours that indicates to him that the bike is evidence and not just someone who was on a bike ride and was injured/incapacitated/knocked off and they can't find her now. Jumping to HUGE conclusions that the bike is evidence right out of the gate? Hmmm.

MOO

Interesting isn't it, how a good buddy is there to begin the case for LE mishandling the case from the very start.
I'm picturing BM directing good buddy to go "help" cause he's on he on the road, can't get there til 9! Frantic, probably in constant contact by phone. "What are they doing? What are they doing now? Suzanne always road her bike before church. Tell the sheriff that she always went up that way. What are they doing now? Maybe she ran off the road. Look in the ditches. What are they doing now? What are they doing now?"
Control. LE would smell a rat if they were told where to look and bingo, there's the bike.
Moo
 
Lets clarify the 400 deployment mistake.
He probably meant to say "operations" which would be typical for a Ranger with 14 deployments. Ranger deployments are shorter and constantly churning with operations. BM is mashing up some military lingo, but it makes sense.

IMO, you are spot on. I'm the one that initially joked about the 400 deployments statement on WS, then it grew legs and took off. I do feel bad for that.

IMO, this buddy of BM is probably a really good guy who wanted to help, has "take charge" and get things done attitude. He would probably be surprised to know who my husband is. My husband started his Army career in 2nd Ranger Battalion and deployed too many times for me to count, especially during the height of GWOT. I was a good wife and lived by OPSEC and had no desire to ever ask my husband about his missions but these deployments were a constant high speed tempo and rapid.

I believe BM was confused by military lingo, perhaps exaggerates a little in general and is just proud of his buddy.
 
“This is the most devastating thing that has ever happened to me

I guess we see who his priority is. Would have been more gracious if he had said US, instead of ME.


“But I have got to keep my faith and trust in God. And Suzanne trusted the Lord and if one person got saved from this, she would think it was worth it. And we are just a Godly, loving, caring, family and this thing is just a tragedy.”


So WHO, exactly , would be 'saved' from her death? I don't understand that part at all.
 
Yep. Saying that PEOPLE don't know the truth implies that HE does. Curious way to put it.
YESSSS...good catch.

On one hand he is still giving a series of options because he supposedly doesn't know if it was an accident or a wild animal or a sexual predator or an evil friend that is responsible for this 'thing.'

And yet a moment later he implies that he knows the truth, while others do not. I suppose his 'truth' is that he did not do this, but if that is all he knows about her disappearance, then he doesn't know the truth either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
57
Guests online
2,563
Total visitors
2,620

Forum statistics

Threads
601,241
Messages
18,121,042
Members
230,995
Latest member
MiaCarmela
Back
Top