Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #29

[Megnut]

Can anyone make out wear bm says he was at 3:18

3:15. ....We was really upset that first night... I was in Denver so......

Jmo

 

[TKG]

3:15. ....We was really upset that first night... I was in Denver so......

Jmo

“We was”... How this person has not been arrested is astonishing. Not very smart; he may have street smarts but he can’t string a coherent sentence together if his wife depended on it.

 

[Fireflize]

“We was”... How this person has not been arrested is astonishing. Not very smart; he may have street smarts but he can’t string a coherent sentence together if his wife depended on it.

Hahaha snort haha

 

[susiQ]

He says that at 6:48 I can’t make out where he said he was at 3:18

“I was in Denver,” at 3:18 as well.

 

[Diddian]

Did we ever learn if the Morphews had a landline?

Yet, another reason I would not leave my wife alone if there had been any threats. I would want to make sure she could make a call out for emergencies.

It also makes me wonder how BM was able to conduct/handle business calls if cell reception was so spotty.

Our cell reception is poor at our summer home which is located in a somewhat remote area. When we first purchased the home, we'd have to go stand out in the road to get a signal.

Now, we turn Wi-Fi on and then use the "Wi-Fi Calling" feature, so we are using our wireless network to get an internet boost for our cellphones. When using that feature, you also need to "Update Emergency Address" to your current location, so if you call 911 they will receive that information in relation to your cellphone number.

 

[Seattle1]

Did we ever learn if the Morphews had a landline?

Yet, another reason I would not leave my wife alone if there had been any threats. I would want to make sure she could make a call out for emergencies.

It also makes me wonder how BM was able to conduct/handle business calls if cell reception was so spotty.

Great question!!

Yes - it was during the special PE session that we learned there is no landline at the residence, and family used internet/wifi.

 

[Gigi3]

Our cell reception is poor at our summer home which is located in a somewhat remote area. When we first purchased the home, we'd have to go stand out in the road to get a signal.

Now, we turn Wi-Fi on and then use the "Wi-Fi Calling" feature, so we are using our wireless network to get an internet boost for our cellphones. When using that feature, you also need to "Update Emergency Address" to your current location, so if you call 911 they will receive that information in relation to your cellphone number.

Good information, thanks. I wonder if they had something similar to this?

 

[Janeumayer]

Did we ever learn if the Morphews had a landline?

Yet, another reason I would not leave my wife alone if there had been any threats. I would want to make sure she could make a call out for emergencies.

It also makes me wonder how BM was able to conduct/handle business calls if cell reception was so spotty.

In one of the PE videos (can’t recall which one) they stated the Morphew’s did not have a landline.

PS Seattle1 beat me to it! Lol

 

[Gigi3]

Yes - it was during the special PE session that we learned there is no landline at the residence, and family used internet/wifi.

Thanks, Seattle1!

 

[Puzzles8]

It is likely that RM-RCFL (Rocky Mountain Regional Computer Forensics Lab) of which CBI is a partner will do the digital forensics analysis, CBI will do most of the forensics of other evidence unless it is particularly complicated, at which time it would be sent to the FBI lab, and they would do some of the out of state and out of county interviews and follow-ups, CCSO will write search warrants, do local interviews, and otherwise follow up on any new leads. So even though CCSO has only the 2 detectives, they actually have a large team working with them on the case.

Typically what types of evidence take the longest to process and analyze?

What is a reasonable time frame to expect the results of these tests?

TIA

 

[Brubon]

DBM

 

[oviedo]

The focus on excavating the property he worked at and his comment about the bobcat has me very afraid that this will be just like Kelsey Berreth- nothing left to find.

Yes and we know how that ended - my theory remains unchanged ... sadly
JMO

 

[Gigi3]

I probably need to go back and listen to the interview with AM, but didn’t he say that BM suggested a disgruntled employee that he had fired?

That same employee, which BM then proceeded to get jobs around Salida and near his neighborhood? After this employee had supposedly made threats against BM’s family?

Did I hear that correctly? If so, that makes zero sense to me.

 

[Cindizzi]

CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #26
^^See the entire post quoted by OP for clarity at link #26 above.



@RumorMonger,
I don't believe I've had the privilege to know you or your posts so I apologize in advance if I get this wrong.

But before I advance one keystroke further, I have to say that I'm absolutely dumbfounded by OP's ability to retrieve my post of 18 August from three (3) locked threads ago. BRAVO??!!!

I'm sure I speak for others in desiring OP's knowledge of how to quote archived posts from a locked thread. Please tell! My practice limits me to only linking my locked posts from thread #26 (linked above for clarity).

I'm also not sure about this "putting me on the spot."
When one is addressed directly, is the courtesy of a reply not required?
(Don't say it-- probably another redundant British practice)...

OK, getting back to your stated assumptions that people that know the respondent and the family dynamics are supposed to speak for the missing person and protect their interest, and they are allowed and encouraged to have legal counsel themselves, I agree in part, and offer the following:

To be clear, my quoted posts on the matter of guardianship for a missing person are not intended to challenge or allege in any form that BM has done anything illegal or underhanded by petitioning for guardianship of SM.

I cannot find fault with BM, or any other petitioner, for using the only law available to them under the circumstances of a missing wife. That would make no sense to me.

However, what I am doing in this post is using BM's petition, and his circumstances, to further my opinion that serious flaws exist in the Indiana State Statute providing for guardianship of missing persons.

Indiana Law defines who is entitled to notice that a petition has been filed for your loved one and that a guardianship hearing has been scheduled. If you're not entitled to be notified, there is no provision in the IC for a guardianship petition hearing regarding your loved one to be publically advertised to alert or otherwise notify interested parties such as, in this case, SM's father, siblings, Godmother, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.. People, that as you stated, are best suited to understand the family dynamics of the missing person in order to determine where intervention is needed.

More specifically, IC 29-3-6-1(a) states:

(4) If it is alleged that the person is an incapacitated person, notice of the petition and the hearing on the petition shall be given to the following persons whose whereabouts can be determined upon reasonable inquiry:

(A) The alleged incapacitated person, the alleged incapacitated person's spouse, and the alleged incapacitated person's adult children, or if none, the alleged incapacitated person's parents.

Applying the Indiana guardianship rules pursuant to IC 29-3-6-1(a) to BM's circumstances and petition for guardianship of his wife, only two people were required notified that the serious issue of guardianship of SM was even before the Indiana court. I don't understand how any intervention, as you stated, would be possible under this law.

(A) The alleged incapacitated person [SM], [missing, cannot be notified],
the alleged incapacitated person's spouse [BM],
and the alleged incapacitated person's adult children [MM],
or if none, the alleged incapacitated person's parents [not applicable].

According to public records, BM filed a Petition to Establish Guardianship of SM and other documents including Consent of Interested Party in Hamilton County, IN, on June 1, 2020 - only weeks after SM was reported missing. Court records also indicate a Motion was filed to Waive the Hearing, and by Court Order, BM was granted Temporary Guardianship of SM on June 5, 2020.

In the Hamilton Superior Court 1, Hamilton County, Indiana
Case No. 29D01-2006-GU-000096

A Guardianship Has been established for:
Suzanne R. Morphew
Incapacitated Adult/Minor
Year of Birth: 1971
Guardianship Type: Temporary

Guardian(s) Guardianship Of Issue Date Expiration Date
Barry L. Morphew Individual and Estate
6/5/2020
9/3/2020

https://public.courts.in.gov/grp/Search/Detail/187708?Detail=True
Indiana Supreme Court public access case search - MyCase

Since June 5, 2020, BM has had Letters of Guardianship for SM, empowering him to have full control over his Ward's (wife) entire estate without anybody ever knowing except for his adult daughter (and/or anyone BM chose to tell or confide in).

Reportedly, none of SM's family had any knowledge whatsoever that the issue of SM's guardianship was before any court! If not for a reporter reaching an unnamed sibling, seeking any comment about BM selling real estate located in Hamilton County, IN while SM was missing, it's quite likely they still would not know that BM was granted guardianship by court order.

Again, let me be clear that according to Indiana law, BM had/has no legal requirement and was under no obligation to inform anybody about his petition for guardianship except for his adult daughter, who also provided her consent. BM was guided by the law for missing persons, and it's my position that Indian law fails to protect missing persons including SM.

It's my opinion that Indiana law approving a grieving spouse and adult child--probably in shock, to consent to life-changing decisions on behalf of their missing wife and mother (pretty much in secret), less than a month since she vanished does not adequately protect the missing, respondent. I believe it was the fore founders of probate court that recognized the need to prohibited certain actions for six months as a safeguard to protect the grieving from bad decisions during a fragile period.

To answer your last question, I do not believe the solution here is "just providing a free lawyer."

I've made other suggestions on what I think the Indiana General Assembly might consider changing in a subsequent post in closed Thread #26, linked below.

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

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

MOO

@Seattle1 to retrieve an older post I click on the post# and a box opens where you can copy the link .

 

[MassGuy]

I probably need to go back and listen to the interview with AM, but didn’t he say that BM suggested a disgruntled employee that he had fired?

That same employee, which BM then proceeded to get jobs around Salida and near his neighborhood? After this employee had supposedly made threats against BM’s family?

Did I hear that correctly? If so, that makes zero sense to me.

Correct. And this employee, who was on drugs and screwed up a wall, took advantage of the situation when Barry set out to repair it on Mother’s Day morning.

Remarkable!

 

[MassGuy]

@Seattle1 to retrieve an older post I click on the post# and a box opens where you can copy the link .

I think @Seattle1 is getting at the fact that OP is actually replying to posts from 3 locked threads ago. It’s not a matter of going back and linking it, but the fact that OP is able to directly reply.

 

[Gigi3]

Correct. And this employee, who was on drugs and screwed up a wall, took advantage of the situation when Barry set out to repair it on Mother’s Day morning.

Remarkable!

Right!?!
Well, when you put it that way- it makes total sense

 

[TexieLouWho21]

In the photographs when CBI was searching the worksite property, I remember seeing three pieces of earthmoving type machinery at one edge of that site: a large excavator (the type that swivels on its base above the tracks) and two smaller skid steers - a yellow or mustard colored one and a white or off-white one similar to that seen in photographs of the Morphew property on one of the days that home was searched.

Visible at about the 0:49 mark and about the 2:00 mark:

IMO That seems to be 2 skid steers and a track hoe. I can't find a close, clear picture. I can say with confidence that the one on the tracks is a track hoe. It will dig down really deep with a small bucket, like the small bucket on a back hoe. This is also the piece of equipment that has a specialized blade on it for back blading. The reason I think the equipment, moved in the night, might have ran so long is the fluids needed to heat up. The hydraulic fluid,oil, and diesel get thick when they get cold.

Since this equipment was setting during the LE search site, when was the footage of the M house taken? I wish we knew how much equipment BM owned, rented and/or borrowed. It looks like there was an awful lot of dirt moved around on that site. I hope LE checked ALL the equipment. Any one of these pieces of equipment will move massive amounts of weight, even though they are smaller sized.

 

[OldCop]

Typically what types of evidence take the longest to process and analyze?

What is a reasonable time frame to expect the results of these tests?

TIA

Physical evidence such as blood, bone, teeth usually doesn’t take long to analyze in and of itself. It is usually the backlog at the lab that often stretches out the time it takes to get the results of this type of analysis back. Unless it is an emergency situation, lab evidence is put in a queue. First come, first served.
It is the digital forensics that can take a prolonged period of time. A recent news video about one of the RCFL labs indicated it can take over three months just to crack a password on a cellphone and then they would still have to analyze any data they retrieve from it. So that kind of analysis can easily take many months.

 

[MassGuy]

Random thought. If an employee of yours screws up a project, isn’t it your responsibility to catch the mistake right away, and rectify it on the spot? Don’t you check the work once it’s done?

As the owner of the company, doesn’t the buck stop with you? It appears that Barry is a fan of passing it.