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

[BethSpirit]

IMO- When referring back to drone video footage of the Puma Path house and satellite photos today of the house, the house does look different. IMO. It does look like concrete on the side of the garage where there used to be dirt. I have no way of knowing which images are newer. I have no idea how often those photos are updated because I’m not that savvy. And I don’t know how to post a link for anything but it’s easily searchable. So I’ll just add that it looks different IMO. In my non expert opinion. Basically I just put in a nearby address on google earth (not the nonexistent Puma Path address) and then I panned over.

 

[Backstroke10]

I don't either.
I think they're possibly in the general vicinity of wherever the truck data said he was.
For those who followed AJ Hadsell's case, you'll remember how familiar this sounds.
jmo

BBM I agree. I don’t think her remains are on their property. MOO
I wonder if truck GPS data is like phone GPS. If there’s a no service phone area, would that also mean the truck GPS data would be lost in that area? IF BM did this, he could have disposed of her body in an area with no phone service. If there was no phone service, maybe the truck GPS also failed to pinpoint a location at that time. MOO
A friend of mine recently told me about a $10 GPS jammer/blocker he bought at Walmart. I thought GPS jammers were illegal. I doubt BM would have known about this but I found it very interesting. MOO

 

[10ofRods]

GPS doesn't depend on cellular.

That's why you can use Google maps off line and still see where you are, the little dot will move right along, pretty regularly. Google knows where you are, even if you don't.

Does GPS SmartPhone Use Data, Mobile Internet Plan? -

If you want new maps, you'll need data, but the GPS chip in the phone still knows where you are, because GPS satellite positioning is global - and free - and requires no data.

 

[Seattle1]

Just some rambling thoughts here.
Remember how the Daily M ( newspaper based overseas) had some great photos of CSI at the home ?

And remember how last week they (DM) snatched up Lauren’s story about the family saying the GPS doesn’t match and gave it an extra spicy headline with the word
LIED in it?

And then the DM story was scrubbed from the internet within an hour or two?

Could the DM been given a cease and desist order?

Makes me wonder about the map/address situation.
Are photogs camping out around there, launching drones maybe?

I feel the National attention to this case building every day. Even Dr. Phil featured SM’s story last week and it’s being rerun today. He does reach a huge audience. IMO

And of course we have our favorite PE guys shining a light.
The heat is on.

Hoping and praying SM is found soon.

JMO

I'm from the UK and I said earlier that the DM story last week with new details shared from SM's family members pulled by early afternoon was the first time I've ever recalled DM pulling a story!

What can I say... we know BM "has people" and one or more of them must be busy scrubbing the entire family's footprint off of the web. I'm also curious if this privacy clean up has anything to do with his upcoming GUA hearing where BM want's to take no chance of anything surfacing that could disqualify him from keeping his legal control over SM.

MOO

ETA: DM story comes up only if viewing on my cell phone. No new photos, no new content. Story we already know.

 

[Seattle1]

 

[dkryder]

If you have the original link to that DM article there is a chance that by going to the way back machine and entering the address it will show the story. Then you can save the article .this depends on if the archive was scanning DM articles at the time it was live. Worth a shot. MOO.

 

[Backstroke10]

GPS doesn't depend on cellular.

That's why you can use Google maps off line and still see where you are, the little dot will move right along, pretty regularly. Google knows where you are, even if you don't.

Does GPS SmartPhone Use Data, Mobile Internet Plan? -

If you want new maps, you'll need data, but the GPS chip in the phone still knows where you are, because GPS satellite positioning is global - and free - and requires no data.

Interesting. Is this the same for truck GPS data?

 

[StarEyes]

Are there many abandoned mine shafts near the Morphews? Thanks!

 

[Cindizzi]

Are there many abandoned mine shafts near the Morphews? Thanks!

I remember it being discussed before so I put the word “mines’ in search and found this:
URL="CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #17"]CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #17[/URL]

 

[Backstroke10]

I'm concerned for the girls, but I'm even more concerned about this as it relates to motive. If BM had financial ideas which Suzanne did not agree with. Or worse, was unaware of. There is no denying the Guardianship, whether blanket or just for the sale of the home under contract, doesn't look good.

If it's a blanket order as you say, now he has full control of all assets. If it was only for the sale, he now has full control of the proceeds to do as he likes. I realize the existing contract made the Indiana matter timely, necessary even.

The Indiana temporary Guardianship was issued on 06/05/20, he purchased the new parcel in Colorado on 06/25/20. Was the new purchase necessary in the midst of Suzanne missing? For me it really speaks to state of mind.

Another question on the Guardianship; on 07/07/20 an inventory was filed with the court in Indiana. To me this would seem to be a complete list of Suzanne's assets, which Barry would gain control over if the ruling goes his way on September 1st. Is that correct? Then as another poster pointed out, he could petition the courts in Colorado to do the same thing?

BBM ITA. I’m very concerned with him being able to obtain all assets and I think his land purchase on 6/25/20, speaks volumes.
Is the inventory filed on 7/7/20 public record? Have we seen this?
Will we be able to see everything (assets he obtained) after the 9/1/20 hearing?

 

[Puzzles8]

I'm from the UK and I said earlier that the DM story last week with new details shared from SM's family members pulled by early afternoon was the first time I've ever recalled DM pulling a story!

What can I say... we know BM "has people" and one or more of them must be busy scrubbing the entire family's footprint off of the web. I'm also curious if this privacy clean up has anything to do with his upcoming GUA hearing where BM want's to take no chance of anything surfacing that could disqualify him from keeping his legal control over SM.

MOO

ETA: DM story comes up only if viewing on my cell phone. No new photos, no new content. Story we already know.

I can't get to most of the "comment" sections of the DM articles any more.

It's always interesting to read those.......

 

[Puzzles8]

DBM - double post

 

[Seattle1]

@lamlawindy-- can you please offer more guidance on the Guardianship issue --specifically in the state of IN, as follows:

I getting the impression that the Court will not intervene to protect SM's rights and interest at her own hearing by appointing an attorney for her when she will not be present at her own hearing because she's believed ***^**.

But what if she's not? What if she is a captive and later released?

Right or wrong, I'm getting the impression that it's necessary for others (such as her birth family) to intervene on her behalf for representation, and I'm really perplexed by this requirement.

It's perplexing because it seems to me that a respondent that is present at her hearing and opposes her guardianship, can receive a court-appointed lawyer to represent her at her Guardianship hearing.

It also seems that a respondent that received Notice but cannot safely attend the hearing can also receive a lawyer or Guardian ad Litem to represent them at their hearing.

I see no requirement for the parties cited above to have a third party intervene for these respondents to receive protection of their rights.

It does not follow that SM is left hanging without representation unless it's initiated by others.

I'm referencing the facsimile Notice, required to be attached to the petition and quoted below, from the applicable linked Probate Code. The same served as my reference for court-appointed attorneys for respondents at their own Guardianship hearings.

What say you?

And thanks for your courtesy.

More specifically, from Sec. 2 . A copy of the petition shall be attached to the notice, and the notice must be in substantially the following form:

NOTICE

TO:  (name and address of person receiving notice)

On (date of hearing) at (time of hearing) in (place of hearing) at (city), Indiana, the (name and address of court) will hold a hearing to determine whether a guardian should be appointed or a protective order should be issued for (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).  A copy of the petition requesting appointment of a guardian or for the issuance of a protective order is attached to this notice.

At the hearing the court will determine whether (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) is an incapacitated person or minor under Indiana law.  This proceeding may substantially affect the rights of (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).

If the court finds that (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) is an incapacitated person or minor, the court at the hearing shall also consider whether (name of proposed guardian, if any) should be appointed as guardian of (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).  The court may, in its discretion, appoint some other qualified person as guardian.  The court may also, in its discretion, limit the powers and duties of the guardian to allow (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) to retain control over certain property and activities.  The court may also determine whether a protective order should be entered on behalf of (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).

(Name of alleged incapacitated person) may attend the hearing and be represented by an attorney.  The petition may be heard and determined in the absence of (name of alleged incapacitated person) if the court determines that the presence of (name of alleged incapacitated person) is not required.  If (name of alleged incapacitated person) attends the hearing, opposes the petition, and is not represented by an attorney, the court may appoint an attorney to represent (name of alleged incapacitated person).  The court may, where required, appoint a guardian ad litem to represent (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) at the hearing.

The court may, on its own motion or on request of any interested person, postpone the hearing to another date and time.

_________________________________
(signature of clerk of the court)


Indiana Code Title 29. Probate § 29-3-6-2 | FindLaw

 

[Backstroke10]

^^rsbbm

Actually, it seems to me that Judge Casati's has given investigators about 90 days after BM filed an emergency petition for guardianship (granted prior to the June 6 real estate closing date) to provide information to disqualify BM as guardian for SM.

Relative to notice, pursuant to IC 29-3-3-4(a), no guardian of an adult shall be appointed or protective order entered without notice except upon verified allegations that delay may result in immediate and irreparable injury to the person or loss or damage to the property.

Initially, I believed BM relied upon the exception in IC 29-3-3-4(a) to waive any notices required for his emergency petition for guardianship, and why the Moorman's were left in the dark about the petition for guardianship by BM.

Nonetheless, please take note IC § 29-3-6-1(a)(4) does provide for notice to the incapacitated person's parents --if BM and the adult Morphew daughter are not. SM's father, Mr. Moorman, is present to receive notice from the court.



@lamlawindy provides that Judge Casati cannot delay the guardianship proceeding indefinitely. However, the required Notice pursuant to IC 29-3-3-4(a) also states:

The court may, on its own motion or on request of any interested person, postpone the hearing to another date and time.

At this time, I think it equally important that whenever the hearing held, SM should be represented by her own Attorney at her guardianship hearing held in her absence.

I presume the court would have to provide an attorney for SM in her absence, right? Appoint a guardian ad litem for the hearing?

We don't know if the prior notice waived for the guardianship petition but I want to believe that SM's daughter would support SM's interests protected at her guardianship hearing just as she confirmed BM as SM's guardian.

More specifically, from Sec. 2 . A copy of the petition shall be attached to the notice, and the notice must be in substantially the following form:

NOTICE

TO:  (name and address of person receiving notice)

On (date of hearing) at (time of hearing) in (place of hearing) at (city), Indiana, the (name and address of court) will hold a hearing to determine whether a guardian should be appointed or a protective order should be issued for (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).  A copy of the petition requesting appointment of a guardian or for the issuance of a protective order is attached to this notice.

At the hearing the court will determine whether (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) is an incapacitated person or minor under Indiana law.  This proceeding may substantially affect the rights of (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).

If the court finds that (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) is an incapacitated person or minor, the court at the hearing shall also consider whether (name of proposed guardian, if any) should be appointed as guardian of (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).  The court may, in its discretion, appoint some other qualified person as guardian.  The court may also, in its discretion, limit the powers and duties of the guardian to allow (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) to retain control over certain property and activities.  The court may also determine whether a protective order should be entered on behalf of (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).

(Name of alleged incapacitated person) may attend the hearing and be represented by an attorney.  The petition may be heard and determined in the absence of (name of alleged incapacitated person) if the court determines that the presence of (name of alleged incapacitated person) is not required.  If (name of alleged incapacitated person) attends the hearing, opposes the petition, and is not represented by an attorney, the court may appoint an attorney to represent (name of alleged incapacitated person).  The court may, where required, appoint a guardian ad litem to represent (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) at the hearing.

The court may, on its own motion or on request of any interested person, postpone the hearing to another date and time.

_________________________________
(signature of clerk of the court)


Probate Rules | Hamilton County, IN

Indiana Code Title 29. Probate § 29-3-6-2 | FindLaw

Wow! Thanks Seattle for providing all of this valuable information. I don’t know how I missed your post earlier. In reference to the parts you bolded towards the end. I think the judge should have appointed a guardian ad litem to represent Suzanne and the court should postpone the hearing. I know this probably won’t happen though. MOO

 

[Puzzles8]

If you have the original link to that DM article there is a chance that by going to the way back machine and entering the address it will show the story. Then you can save the article .this depends on if the archive was scanning DM articles at the time it was live. Worth a shot. MOO.

I'm assuming the way back machine can lead you to cached copies.
I've always wondered how that works. Can you share any information as to - how to operate the way back machine?
TIA

 

[Backstroke10]

@lamlawindy-- can you please offer more guidance on the Guardianship issue --specifically in the state of IN, as follows:

I getting the impression that the Court will not intervene to protect SM's rights and interest at her own hearing by appointing an attorney for her when she will not be present at her own hearing because she's believed ***^**.

But what if she's not? What if she is a captive and later released?

Right or wrong, I'm getting the impression that it's necessary for others (such as her birth family) to intervene on her behalf for representation, and I'm really perplexed by this requirement.

It's perplexing because it seems to me that a respondent that is present at her hearing and opposes her guardianship, can receive a court-appointed lawyer to represent her at her Guardianship hearing.

It also seems that a respondent that received Notice but cannot safely attend the hearing can also receive a lawyer or Guardian ad Litem to represent them at their hearing.

I see no requirement for the parties cited above to have a third party intervene for these respondents to receive protection of their rights.

It does not follow that SM is left hanging without representation unless it's initiated by others.

I'm referencing the facsimile Notice, required to be attached to the petition and quoted below, from the applicable linked Probate Code. The same served as my reference for court-appointed attorneys for respondents at their own Guardianship hearings.

What say you?

And thanks for your courtesy.

BBM That is exactly what I’m having a problem with. SM is not being represented because it hasn’t been initiated by others. That makes no sense. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

Wow! Thanks Seattle for providing all of this valuable information. I don’t know how I missed your post earlier. In reference to the parts you bolded towards the end. I think the judge should have appointed a guardian ad litem to represent Suzanne and the court should postpone the hearing. I know this probably won’t happen though. MOO

Thanks @Backstroke10, and I completely agree with you.

I just addressed the issue again in my post directed at lamlawindy, quoted below.

I'm very perplexed by what I see as an inequity in the Guardianship judicial process.

It certainly does not help that I'm not of the opinion that an adult should so easily lose her rights to a Guardian just because she is missing.

It's a big if, but what if SM returns, only to find the horses have all left the barn? Where was her protection at the hearing?

MOO

@lamlawindy-- can you please offer more guidance on the Guardianship issue --specifically in the state of IN, as follows:

I getting the impression that the Court will not intervene to protect SM's rights and interest at her own hearing by appointing an attorney for her when she will not be present at her own hearing because she's believed ***^**.

But what if she's not? What if she is a captive and later released?

Right or wrong, I'm getting the impression that it's necessary for others (such as her birth family) to intervene on her behalf for representation, and I'm really perplexed by this requirement.

It's perplexing because it seems to me that a respondent that is present at her hearing and opposes her guardianship, can receive a court-appointed lawyer to represent her at her Guardianship hearing.

It also seems that a respondent that received Notice but cannot safely attend the hearing can also receive a lawyer or Guardian ad Litem to represent them at their hearing.

I see no requirement for the parties cited above to have a third party intervene for these respondents to receive protection of their rights.

It does not follow that SM is left hanging without representation unless it's initiated by others.

I'm referencing the facsimile Notice, required to be attached to the petition and quoted below, from the applicable linked Probate Code. The same served as my reference for court-appointed attorneys for respondents at their own Guardianship hearings.

What say you?

And thanks for your courtesy.

 

[MrsWatson]

Someone needs to represent SM's interests at that 01 Sept hearing. It's like BM is trying to erase her so he can continue wheeling and dealing with what may be her assets, not his. I gave him a big pass on the house closing, but the rest? Just no.

Pretty incredible that Barry is in such a good emotional state after his wife of 26 years is missing that he is able to conduct business as usual. How does he justify it to their daughters?

MOO

 

[susiQ]

Someone needs to represent SM's interests at that 01 Sept hearing. It's like BM is trying to erase her so he can continue wheeling and dealing with what may be her assets, not his. I gave him a big pass on the house closing, but the rest? Just no.

Pretty incredible that Barry is in such a good emotional state after his wife of 26 years is missing that he is able to conduct business as usual. How does he justify it to their daughters?

MOO

Absolutely. I find his actions and inactions utterly repulsive. At minimum, he is a bold-faced liar. I strongly suspect that’s not the worst of it

I sincerely hope someone counsels SM’s family to challenge his guardianship of her assets.

 

[MrsWatson]

Absolutely. I find his actions and inactions utterly repulsive. At minimum, he is a bold-faced liar. I strongly suspect that’s not the worst of it

I sincerely hope someone counsels SM’s family to challenge his guardianship of her assets.

I can understand not wanting to alienate their daughters, but they are also old enough to understand and question their father's financial maneuverings.

MOO