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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seattle1 said:
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). what appears, reply directly from a closed thread.

MOO
Click to expand...
^^RSBM ^^clarfication.

@RumorMonger. I'm still dumbfounded, and edited why above. :)
 
MassGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

IMO and in my experience, yes. My husband is a self-employed contractor (mainly smaller renovations and exterior paint jobs, nothing very large or commercial since he does most of his work without employees or with subcontracts). If something were to go wrong, he would absorb the cost and fix it right away. He doesn’t get the final payment until the contract is complete, and much of the profit margin is in that final payment.

Leaving a job unfinished or with a huge mistake opens you up to possibility of a lawsuit, and possibly criminal charges. The only situation I could imagine a contractor not fixing a job is that the contractor ran out of money. MOO
 
Hoosierfan72 said:
So my wife and I attended the candlelight vigil in Alexandria this evening. There were several video cameras there, so there may be video of the service out there at some point, but I'm happy to give a summary (all IMO, JMO):
  • The turnout was good, considering how small of a town Alexandria is - I'd estimate the crowd at between 125-150 people.
  • Andy said a few words - his focus was on his desire to "bring his little sister home" and to "get closure for him and his family quickly". He talked in glowing terms about PE, how supportive they have been to him, and how they are helping him organize a large search for Suzanne in Colorado starting on September 23rd. He said he hopes to get 1000 volunteers.
  • A pastor gave a prayer, someone else sang a couple of songs, one other person read some scripture. Andy finished with another ask to join him in Colorado ("I want to bring an army of people in to find my little sister") and a heartfelt thanks for all the support the community has shown him and his family.
  • There was a small table with large picture of Suzanne and a smaller picture of SM/BM/kids on it. There were yellow and teal balloons (I believe the yellow signifies "come home" and the teal was for the color of her bike helmet??).
  • There were buttons that attendees could take and wear - one bowl of buttons had just a picture of SM on them. Another bowl of buttons had a picture of SM and BM together on them. All of the SM buttons were taken - there were some SM/BM buttons left over (I thought this might be a barometer for where the town sits re: BM, JMO)
  • BM was not in attendance, but several members of his extended family were - many had homemade tshirts on (I believe they said something about bringing SM home and had a scripture verse listed as well). I have to believe there is some level of tension between the Morphew and Moorman families (how could there not be?), but I don't think you'd know it from being at the service. IMO, all these family members are victims and really deserve a lot of credit for how they've handled things (it sure seems to me that nearly every family has that one crazy uncle who talks to the media and says dumb stuff when something like this happens - and that hasn't been the case with this at all).
All in all, it was a very simple and nicely done service. Nothing really new, other than AM's organized search (with the assistance of PE, who he said will be bringing in a "ton of experts" to help) on September 23rd.

Once again, all this JMO, MOO.
Click to expand...
Thank you @Hoosierfan72 -- reading your summary gave me chills. #respect.
 
Seattle1 said:
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
Click to expand...
BRAVA BRAVA! @Seattle1
 
Hoosierfan72 said:
So my wife and I attended the candlelight vigil in Alexandria this evening. There were several video cameras there, so there may be video of the service out there at some point, but I'm happy to give a summary (all IMO, JMO):
  • The turnout was good, considering how small of a town Alexandria is - I'd estimate the crowd at between 125-150 people.
  • Andy said a few words - his focus was on his desire to "bring his little sister home" and to "get closure for him and his family quickly". He talked in glowing terms about PE, how supportive they have been to him, and how they are helping him organize a large search for Suzanne in Colorado starting on September 23rd. He said he hopes to get 1000 volunteers.
  • A pastor gave a prayer, someone else sang a couple of songs, one other person read some scripture. Andy finished with another ask to join him in Colorado ("I want to bring an army of people in to find my little sister") and a heartfelt thanks for all the support the community has shown him and his family.
  • There was a small table with large picture of Suzanne and a smaller picture of SM/BM/kids on it. There were yellow and teal balloons (I believe the yellow signifies "come home" and the teal was for the color of her bike helmet??).
  • There were buttons that attendees could take and wear - one bowl of buttons had just a picture of SM on them. Another bowl of buttons had a picture of SM and BM together on them. All of the SM buttons were taken - there were some SM/BM buttons left over (I thought this might be a barometer for where the town sits re: BM, JMO)
  • BM was not in attendance, but several members of his extended family were - many had homemade tshirts on (I believe they said something about bringing SM home and had a scripture verse listed as well). I have to believe there is some level of tension between the Morphew and Moorman families (how could there not be?), but I don't think you'd know it from being at the service. IMO, all these family members are victims and really deserve a lot of credit for how they've handled things (it sure seems to me that nearly every family has that one crazy uncle who talks to the media and says dumb stuff when something like this happens - and that hasn't been the case with this at all).
All in all, it was a very simple and nicely done service. Nothing really new, other than AM's organized search (with the assistance of PE, who he said will be bringing in a "ton of experts" to help) on September 23rd.

Once again, all this JMO, MOO.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for this report. Thank you for attending and taking the time to share with us...so unique. Wow!
 
MsBetsy said:
Thank you. That clears up a few things for me. I couldn't remember if the GPS data the PE guys referred to was from the phone or the truck.

So as long as the phone is powered on, the GPS works even if there is no cell phone service. I do believe BM went to Denver for some reason or another. I would think he would want there to be evidence that he was there that day. It places him a couple of hours away from the scene of the crime.

Whether he got back at 6:00 pm or at 9:00 pm, he had plenty of time to do more than just prep a job for his workers. There must be many secluded areas where he could have stopped along the way.

Imo
Click to expand...
What if he "accidentally" put his phone in someone else's vehicle headed that way, then took his sweet time arriving. Just a thought.
 
Dr.StClements said:
.... a house sale in progress before SM went missing and that in order to complete the sale, BM had to seek help via the courts to complete the sale in July 2020.
However, I find it offensive in the extreme that he has free rein to do what he wants with their joint assets only a month after Suzanne first goes missing.
Would there have been any way for the courts to have limited BM's authority to the one transaction (house sale)? ....
Click to expand...
@Dr.StClements sbm Thank you for your post.
{{{ETA: after reading @Seattle1 's comments as quoted in @marylamby 's post 528, upthread, I feel Seattle1 may have more info and insight into specifics of BM's petition and the ct. order, but I'll leave this post intact, as FYI re what I believe to be gen bus. practice. TYVM, @Seattle1 }}}

Bbm #1. Iiuc, BM was given authority by ct, to close June?July? IN. prop sale. Not sure if BM has free rein already w all their jt. assets. Iiuc (and not saying I do, because I have not seen pleadings, ct orders, & other dox), ct appt'ed him as Gdn/granted him auth'y. to act only as to that one home prop, which would imo have been specifically listed in the petition originally filed.
Also iirc, BM/BM's atty did not file an inventory until after first ct order/apptmt re that one prop. was issued.

Bbm #2. Based on gen business practices described below, I doubt that now/before Sept(?) hearing, that BM can manage to wangle any real est or brokerage a/c transactions. But no predictions from me about what will happen in the fall or re bank accts.
Stepping away from the M's specifically, say, ;)Harry Husband & Wanda Wife, (;) my favorite hypo couple), are in a situation in which HH petitions for Gdnship , because of WW's long term coma after car crash. HH files petition and inventory of prop, assets, accts, etc and requests apptmt/authority over all of them. Something like this, but more details, addresses, etc -->
Inventory: 1st Nat'l Bk checking a/c ($5,000); Derrill-Bynch brokerage ($ 15,000 IBM common stock); Gedility Mutual Funds ($ 30,000); Rental house ($ 125,000); Rental duplex ($ 200,000); Rental office bldg ($ 350,000),
< in WW's name only.

Iirc, the court (virtually? always) specifies in its Order/Letter, the properties, assets, accts, which HH has auth'ty to handle. At least IME at HQ of a national investment brokerage, HH is not allowed to place buy or sell orders for stocks, mut fds, etc, or make withdrawals, write checks, etc , in WW's a/c, unless/until home office law/compliance dept had reviewed ct doc's to verify that HH had been given auth'ty by the ct do do so.*
IME w real est, title ins. co's exercise similar scrutiny over real est transactions.

Personally cannot address bank practices, so hoping some others , esp'ly our legal professionals, will weigh in, to
comment, clarify, or correct. And if their exp. w other types of businesses or institutions is different from mine.
my2cts
----------------------------------------------------------
* Of course, some other situations allow HH to transact business for WW, for ex. if WW is named as trustee of WW's trust agreement of tr dox, or if WW executed a power of atty authorizing him to do so.
 
Last edited:
Seattle1 said:
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
Click to expand...
Bravo Bam Bingo!!!
 
Wendyb1063 said:
I'm mostly a lurker What anhere, and I've tried hard to remain objective in terms of BM despite certain gut feelings. However, I am pretty certain he's responsible. Here is the most objective information that has brought me to this conclusion:

1. The sheriff has said this is an open criminal investigation, so that rules out an accident, animal attack, or her leaving on her own accord. This leaves either a kidnapping or a murder with her body removed from the home. Because no description of Suzanne was released by the police to the media, this implies that the police have evidence that a kidnapping did not occur. This leaves murder with her body removed from the home as the only remaining option.
2. BM said in the video with TD that his name had been cleared. However, on July 9, LE said that they had not formally ruled out anyone from suspicion.
3. The Morphew house has been searched twice, with sealed search warrants (which require a judge to agree with law enforcement that there is probable cause that evidence of criminal activity will be found) obtained for each search and evidence removed.
4. One of BM's job sites (where he was recently hired to lay dirt) has been searched, which also was done using a search warrant.
5. BM says he has not been asked to take a polygraph exam. However, SM's family says he has been asked twice to do so and has refused both times. I don't know why her family (who do not live nearby) would lie, and I don't think that LS (the reporter) would have stated this in her article if she had any doubts about the veracity of this statement.
6. In same LS interview with a family member of SM, it was said that the data collected from BM's truck didn't match up. Again, I trust LS to only report this if she had confidence in its truth.


I'm probably forgetting some important things here. There is also PLENTY of less objective information that supports the idea that BM is behind SM's disappearance.

The other theories I've considered all have problems. For example, maybe it was a stranger who entered the house. This makes the bike staging hard to explain, as well as the perfect timing with BM and the girls gone. It could have been a friend of SM's or BM's or one of the girls who knew SM would be alone that day, but why then would they hide the body AND stage the bike?

I haven't yet heard a good theory that fits the few known facts of the case that really would absolve BM, but I'd love to hear one. IMOO.
Click to expand...
What an awesome post. Don't stay lurking. Please keep sharing your insight!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 142 more.
Total: 1,905 (members: 143, guests: 1,762)

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
1,762
Total visitors
1,905
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,874
Messages
18,212,324
Members
233,992
Latest member
gisberthanekroot
Back
Top